STATE OF U.P. & ORS.versusRAVINDRA KUMAR SHARMA & ORS.

                        (2016] 2 S.C.R. 845



                      STATE OF U.P. & ORS.                               A
                                 v.
             RAVINDRA KUMAR SHARMA & ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 758of2016)
                       FEBRUARY 03, 2016                                 8
           [M. Y. EQBAL AND ARUN MISHRA, JJ.]
       Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of
Rights and Full Participation) Rules, 1996 - Verification of the
disability certificates issued by the Medical Board under - Right of
the Government - On facts, complaint of illegal usurpation of the        c
quota reserved for handicapped persons on the basis offraudulently
procured certificates without suffering from the disability certified
under the Rules - On the basis thereof, issuance' of order by the
Government for verification of such certificates issued by the
Medical Board - Certificates of 21% of selected candidates of
                                                                         D
handicapped category found to be fraudulent - Challenge to -
Division Bench of the High Court holding that it is not permissible
to reopen medical certificate carried out under the Rules - On
appeal, held: Fraud vitiates and in such a case when large number
of candidates have illegally usurped the reserved seats of the persons
suffering from disability the action of State Government did not call    E
for interference - There was no scope for the Division Bench to
interfere and issue order to perpetuate fraud - Order passed by the
Division Bench of the High Court set aside.
      Allowing the appeal, the Court
     HELD: 1.1 Fraud vitiates and in such a case when large              F
number of candidates have illegally usurped the reserved seats
of the persons suffering from disability the action of State
Government did not call for interference. [Para 6] [848-F-G]
      1.2 The Division Bench of the High Court ignored and
overlooked the material fact that verific:ition had already been         G
done by the Medical Board and it was found that certificates of
21 % were fraudulently obtained. The High Court issued a
direction in the impugned order for physical verification of the
candidate by the authorities and in case he does not suffer from
disability so certified candidate can be subjected to fresh medical
                                                                         H
                                 845
846             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2016] 2 S.C.R.


A   test. The High Court overlooked that on mere physical
    verification it may not be possible to know various kinds of
    disabilities such as that of eyes, ear impairment etc. That can
    only be done by the medical examination and particularly when
    the High Court itself observed that in case there is genuine
    suspicion and fraud has been committed medical certification can
 B
    be reopened. In the peculiar facts of the instant case of such a
    fraud and genuine suspicion raised in the representation lodged
    by the VS and when 21 % of such certificates have been found to
    be fraudulently obtained there was no scope for the Division
    Bench to interfere and issue order to perpetuate fraud, writ is to
 c be declined in such a scenario and no equity can be claimed by
    the respondents. The impugned judgment and order passed by
  • the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside and the writ
    petition is dismissed. [Paras 10, 11, 12] [851-B-G]
              Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar v. State of Maharashtra &
 D            Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 605:2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 774; Ram
              Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi (2003) 8 SCC 319: 2003
              (4) Suppl. SCR 543; Express Newspapers (P) Ltd& Ors.
              v, Union of India & Ors. (1986) 1 SCC 133: 1985 (3)
              Suppl. SCR 382 - referred to.

 E                             Case Law Reference
              2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 774      referred to Para 7
              2003 ( 4 ) Suppl. SCR 543    referred to Para 8
              1985 (3 ) Suppl. SCR 382     referred to Para 9
              C!VlLAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 758 of
 F
      2016.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 09.09.20 l 0 of the High Court
      Allahabad at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 811 of2010.
            M. R. Shamshad. 'vlr. Shashank Singh, Ms. Harshita Deswal,Advs.
      for appellants.
 G          R. Venkatramani, Pallav Shishodia, Sr. Advs., Raj iv Kumar,Abishek
      Srivastava, (For Ms. Kusum Chaudhaty) Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi,
      Advs. for Respondents.
              The Judgment of the Cou1~t was delivered by
              ARUN MISHRA, J. 1. Leave granted.
 H
 STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. RAVINDRA KUMAR SHARMA &                                  847
                ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.l

       2. The question involved in the appeal is as to the right of the            A
appellant to verify the disability certificates issued by the Medical Board
under the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,
Protection of Rights and Full Pa1ticipation) Rules, 1996. The respondents
applied for BTC training course under the physically handicapped
category on the basis of certificates issued under the aforesaid Rules. It         B
was claimed that they completed the training and had been offered
appointment in the primary schools run and managed by the State
Governme11t. Complaint was received from Bhartiya Viklang Sangh of
illegal usurpation of the quota reserved for handicapped persons on the
basis of fraudulently procured certificates without suffering from the            c
disability certified under the Rules of 1996. The State Government issued
an order dated 3.11.2009 making a provision for constitution of fresh
Medical Board in order to verify and assess the disability of the
candidates. The candidates questioned communication dated 15. 7.20 I 0
issued by the Director, State Council for Educational Research & Training
                                                                                   D
based upon the G.O. dated 3.11.2009 requiring them to appear before
the Medical Board constituted in order to assess the disability. Out of
the 234 candidates selected under the handicapped category on being
examined by the Medical Board it was found that 21 % of the candidates
were not handicapped.
                                                                                   E
       3. A Single Bench of the High Court of Allahabad vi de judgment
and order dated 31.8.2010 dismissed the writ application holding that
 under the Rule framed in exercise of the powers under sub-sections (I)
and (2) ofsection 73 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Oppo1tunities,
·Protection of Rights and Full Participation)Act, 1995, the general eligibility
to apply for facilities, concessions and benefits admissible under the             F
scheme of the Act is subject to such conditions as the State Government
 may impose and the State Government has imposed a condition in the
order dated 3.11.2009 ofconstitution of the Medical Board for verification
of the disability. Even otherwise under the rules there can be a review of
the decision upon representation by the applicant and fresh order can be           G
passed. Thus the certificate issued is not final.
      4. On appeal being preferred a Division Bench of the High Court
of Allahabad by the impugned order has allowed the :lfipeal and has held
that while the certificate has been issued in accordance with'ihe Rules
of 1996, roving enquiry cannot be made until and unless fraud.has been
848             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2016] 2 S.C.R.


A     detected, it is not pennissible to reopen medical certification carried out
      under the Rules of 1996. However the High Court has directed that a
      physical verification may be made and if the candidate has not been
      issued certificate of disability or otherwise or that he does not suffer
      from any disability so certified which entitles him to such a certificate, in
B     that event the candidate can be subjected to fresh medical test not
      otherwise. Accordingly the directions by the Government in order dated
      3.11.2009 and by the Directoron 15. 7.20 I 0 for physical verification be
      construed in the aforesaid manner.
           5. It is apparent from Rules of 1996 that disability certificate is
c   required  to be issued by Medical Board. It can issue pennanent disability
    certificate or the Medical Board shall indicate the period of validity in
    the certificate in case where there is any chance of variation in the
    degree of disability. In case of refusal of disability certificate an
  · opportunity is required to be given to the applicant of being heard, and
D there can be a review by the Medical Board on representation by the
    applicant and Rules contains a provision to the effect that the certificate
    issued by the Medical Board shall make a person eligible to apply.
             6. In the facts of the instant case there was a serious complaint
      lodged by Viklang Sangh of illegal usurpation of the quota reserved for
 E    specially ab led by large number of persons who were not in fact specially
      abled and have procured certificates fraudulently from their districts
      under the Rules of 1996. On the basis of the said complaint Government
      has issued an order for the purpose of verification of such certificates
      issued by the Medical Board and certificates of 21 % of selected
      candidates of handicapped category were found to be fraudulent. It is
 F
      settled proposition of law that fraud vitiates and in such a case when
      large number ofcandidates have illegally usurped the reserved seats of
      the persons suffering from disability the action of State Government did
      not call for interference.

 G          7. In Bhaurao Dogdu Paralkar v. State of Maharashtra &
      Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 605, it was observed :
             "16. In Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley (1956) I All ER 3./1,
             Lord Denning observed at QB pp. 712 and 713: (All ER p. 345 C)
                "No judgment ofa court, no order of a minister, can be allowed
                to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels
 H
 STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. RAVINDRA KUMAR SHARMA &                              849
                ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

          everything."                                                        A
      In the same judgment Lord Parker, L.J. observed that fraud vitiates
      all transactions known to the law of however high a degree of
      solemnity. (p. 722) These aspects were recently highlighted in
      State ofA.P. v. T Suryachandra Rao (2005) 6 SCC 149.''
      8. In Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi (2003) 8 SCC 319 it             B
was held thus:
      "15. xx x Fraud as is well known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud
      and justice never dwell together.
      I 6. Fraud is a conduct e·ither by letter or words, which induces the
      other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as      c
      a response to the conduct of the former either by word or letter.
      17. It is also well settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to
      fraud. Indeed, innocent misrepresentation may also give reason
      to claim relief against fraud.
      18. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in
                                                                               D
      leading a man into damage by wilfully or recklessly causing him to
      believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes
      representations which he knows to be false, and injury ensues
      therefrom although the motive from which the representations
      proceeded may not have been bad.
                                     xxxxx                                     E
      23. An act offraud on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion
      or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of others in relation
      to a property would render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud
      and deception are synonymous.
                                     xxxxx                                     F
      25. Although in a given case a deception may not amount to fraud,
      fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted
      with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of
      any equitable doctrine including resjudicata.
      26. In Shrisht Dhml'an v. Shaw Bros. ( 1992) 1 SCC 534, it has           G
      been held that: (SCC p. 553, para 20)
          "20. Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn
           proceedings in any civilized system of jurisprudence. It is a
           concept descriptive of human conduct."
                                      xxxxx
                                                                               H
850            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2016] 2 S.C.R.


A          29. In Chittaranjan Das v. Durgapore Project Ltd. ( 1995) 99
           CWN 897, it has been held: (Cal LJ p. 402, paras 57-58)
               "57. Suppression of a material document which affects the
               condition of service of the petitioner, would amount to fraud in
               such matters. Even the principles of natural justice are not
B              required to be complied with in such a situation.
               58. It is now well known that a fraud vitiates all solemn acts.
               Thus, even ifthe date of birth of the petitioner had been recorded
               in the service returns on the basis of the certificate produced
               by the petitioner, the same is not sacrosanct nor the respondent
c              company would be bound thereby."
             9. This Court in £):press Neirspapers (P) Ltd.& Ors. v. Union
      of India & Ors. ( 1986) I SCC 133 at para 119 has held thus:
            "119. Fraud on power voids the order if it is not exercised bona
            fide for the end design. There is a distinction between exercise of
D           power in good faith and misuse in bad faith. The former arises
            when an authority misuses its power in breach of law, say, by
            taking into account bona fide, and with best of intentions, some
            extraneous matters or by ignoring relevant matters. That would
            render the impugned act or order ultra vi res. It would be a case of
 E          fraud on powers. The misuse in bad faith arises when the power
            is exercised for an improper motive, say, to satisfy a private or
            personal grudge or for wreaking vengeance of a Minister as in S.
            Partap Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1964 SC 72. A power is
            exercised maliciously if its repository is motivated by personal
            animosity towards those who are directly affected by its exercise.
 F
            Use of a power for an 'alien' purpose other than the one for which
            the power is conferred is mala fide use of that power. Same is the
            position when an order is made for a purpose other than that which
            finds place in the order. The ulterior or alien purpose clearly speaks
            of the misuse of the power and it was observed as early as in
G            1904 by Lord Lindley in General Assembly of Free Church of
            Scotland v. Overtow1 (1904) AC 515, 'that there is a condition
             implied in this as well as in other instruments which create powers,
             namely, that the powers shall be used bona fide for the purpose
             for which they are conferred'. It was said by Warrington, C.J. in
 H          Short v. Poole Corpn. ( 1926) Ch 66, that:
 STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. RAVINDRA KUMAR SHARMA &                               851
                ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

          'No public body can be regarded as having statutory authority         A
         to act in bad faith or from corrupt motives, and any action
         _purporting to be of that body, but proved to be committed in
         bad faith or from corrupt motives, would certainly be held to
          be inoperative.'"
       10. The Division Bench of the High Court has ignored and                B
overlooked the material fact that verification has already been done by
the Medical Board and it has been found that certificates of 21 % were
fraudulently obtained. The High Court has issued a direction in the
impugned order for physical verification of the candidate by the authorities
and in case he does not suffer from disability so certified candidate can      c
be subjected to fresh medical test. The High Court lias overlooked that
on mere physical verification it may not be possible to know various
kinds of disabilities such as that of eyes, ear impairment etc. That can
only be done by the medical examination and particularly when the High
Court itself has observed that in case there is genuine suspicion and          D
fraud has been committed medical certification can be reopened. Direction
issued in this regard has not been questioned by the respondents and in
fact process ofre-verification was already over when High Court issued
aforesaid directions.
       11. In our considered opinion in the peculiar facts of this case of      E
such a fraud and genuine suspicion raised in the representation lodged
by the Viklang Sangh and when 21 % of such certificates have been
found to be fraudulently obtained there was no scope for the Division
Bench to interfere and issue order to perpetuate fraud, writ is to be
declined in such a scenario and no equity can be claimed by the
                                                                                F
respondents.
       12. In the circumstance we set aside the impugned judgment and
order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court and dismiss the
writ petition. However before taking any action against the individuals
they shall be issued show ·cause in the matter and thereafter decision
                                                                                G
will be rendered in accordance with law. Let this exercise be completed
within a period of four months. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid
extent.
Nidhi Jain                                                   Appeal allowed.

                                                                                H