Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5657 of 2021
Petitioner :- Veer Bahadur Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Parmeshwar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anand Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
The present petition has been filed for the following relief:-
"a. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to competent authority to make enquiry regarding forge appointment and approval of (respondent No. 7 to 8) and to take appropriate action against, officials/officers/principal who are responsible for misappropriation of said public money."
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that an enquiry should be made with regard to the forged appointment and approval of respondent nos. 7 and 8 and action be taken against the concerned persons.
The petitioner claims to be the life long member of the society. This Court has raised a specific query as to how the petitioner has locus to file the present writ petition as no rights of the petitioner are allegedly infringed upon. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment in the case of C/M Janta Inter College and another Vs. State of U.P. and others, Special Appeal No. 337 of 2017, judgment dated 5.7.2017, wherein this Court recorded as under:-
"We also have no hesitation to record that every member of the general body and every office bearer of the Committee of Management which had been superseded has a right to see that the institution is run and managed in accordance with the statutory provisions applicable and if he finds that the Committee of Management, authorized controller or educational authorities are violating the statutory provisions with impunity then such a person can always approach this Court for ensuring that the Committee of Management, authorized controller and educational authorities act in conformity with the statutory provision while dealing with the institution and not otherwise."
He further places reliance on the judgment in the case of Devi Prasad Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and Others, Special Appeal No. 89 of 2006, judgment dated 11.7.2006, wherein this Court observed as under:-
"Coming to the next point- 'whether petitioner-appellant is 'aggrieved' person or not', learned Single Judge, with respect we find, failed to appreciate that the petitioner was 'the complainant' and on his complaint, entire matter to appoint 'Authorised Controller' was taken up by the State Government and Educational authorities, gross financial irregularities were un-earthed and the petitioner being Member of the 'Society' owing and running the School as well as being Ex Manager was, beyond pale of doubt, an 'aggrieved person' in the instant case."
He has further placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of A.V. Papayya Sastry and others Vs. Government of A.P. and others; (2007) 4 SCC 221, wherein the Supreme Court has held as under:-
"21. Now, it is well-settled principle of law that if any judgment or order is obtained by fraud, it cannot be said to be a judgment or order in law. Before three centuries, Chief Justice Edward Coke Proclaimed:
"Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal."
22. It is thus settled proposition of law that a judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud on the court, tribunal, or authority is a nullity and non est in the eye of law. Such a judgment, decree or order- by the first court or by the final court- has to be treated as nullity by every court, superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any court, at any time, in appeal, revision, writ or even in collateral proceedings."
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents has produced before me a list of members of the society, which does not bear the name of the petitioner. The statement of the petitioner recorded in para 25 is thus an incorrect statement. Even in the judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, no case has been decided to hold that a complainant has a right to approach this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction even when no right is said to have infringed upon.
This Court is resisting itself for imposing a heavy cost upon the petitioner for misleading the Court by mentioning incorrect fact in paragraph 25 of the writ petition, however, the petitioner and made a statement that he will not repeat the same mistakes in future.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner wants to withdraw the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
Order Date :- 28.7.2021
S. Rahman