IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Rajendra Menon, Anil Kumar Upadhyay, JJ.
M/s Sadbhavna H P Gas – Appellant
Versus
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited through Senior Regional Manager and Ors. – Respondents
Letters Patent Appeal No.1071 of 2017 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11915 of 2016
Decided On : 17-08-2017
Fraud - Termination of Distributorship - Bihar School Examination Board, Indian Contract Act - Sections 17, 19 - Promissory Estoppel
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a writ petition against the termination of distributorship by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (the Corporation) due to the use of a forged matriculation certificate. The Corporation issued a show cause notice on detection of fraud in the certificate and later terminated the distributorship. The writ court dismissed the petition after detailed scrutiny of the issues raised by the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Corporation was justified in taking action based on the complaint received and the appellant's submission admitted the certificate was not genuine. The court held that the Corporation followed fair procedure and principles of natural justice. It concluded that the appellant's use of the forged certificate constituted fraud and misrepresentation, precluding her from invoking the principle of promissory estoppel. The court also rejected the appellant's plea for equitable consideration due to her long tenure as a distributor.
Issues: The issues included malicious complaint, fair procedure, scrutiny of credentials, promissory estoppel, and equitable consideration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Corporation's action was justified based on the complaint and the appellant's admission of the certificate's lack of genuineness. It emphasized that fraud vitiates every decision and that equitable relief cannot be granted to perpetuate illegality.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, finding no infirmity in the Corporation's decision-making process.
Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J.
1. In this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant has assailed the elaborate judgment dated 19.7.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 11915 of 2016.
2. The writ petition was filed by the appellant against the decision of the respondent-Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’) initially against the show cause notice dated 13.6.2016, later on the appellant filed I.A. No. 7268 of 2016 challenging the order of termination dated 31.8.2017 passed by the Corporation.
3. The Corporation issued show cause notice to the appellant on detection of fraud on verification from the Bihar School Examination Board in the matriculation certificate of the writ petitioner used for obtaining the distributorship, matriculation certificate was found to be forged and fabricated and not related to the appellant but of one Surendra Karmali, S/o Jeet Ram Karmali. The appellant thereafter filed reply to the show cause notice during the pendency of the writ application. The appellant has submitted her reply as follows:
(i) She never had the occasion of verifying the veracity of matriculation certificate as it always remained with her elder brother.
(ii) She further stated that she was never informed by her late father or elder brother about veracity of matriculation certificate.
(iii) She stated that as a girl candidate she had never fabricated the marks sheet or she was informed by her father or brother that it was fabricated.
(iv) She also stated that neither knowingly nor unknowingly any fake or fabricated document was submitted nor she ever tried to mislead the Corporation in order to get distributorship.
4. On consideration of the show cause reply and on arriving at the conclusion that there is falsehood in the submission of certificate at the time of award of distributorship, the Corporation decided to terminate the distributorship.
5. In the aforesaid backdrop of the fact the writ petition was heard and the Writ Court on the basis of submissions and notes of argument filed by the appellant formulated six points for consideration which are as follows:
“1. The first issue has been raised by the petitioner that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 maliciously with an ulterior motive has made a complaint though they are not the public figure having any past history to espouse such nature of issue of public domain with respect to any private individual.
2. The second point is required to be gone into as has been claimed that the Corporation has not followed fair and proper procedure maintained transparency, failed to observe principle of natural justice while taking decision against the petitioner.
3. The third point has been raised that the credential of the petitioner attached with the application were examined by the Corporation at several stages by different agencies and only, thereafter the dealership was awarded to the petitioner, after long lapse of time, scraping the agreement, on the basis of having filed a forged and fabricated matriculation certificate, is not sustainable in law in view of the fact that the Corporation is backed by strong batteries of employee, having all when withal to have made scrutiny of credential, failure to identify defect in the certificate cannot be a basis of scrap the agreement and deprive the petitioner in the right of business.
4. The forth point is that the undertaking on affidavit which has been obtained from the petitioner with respect to having found any wrong, the Corporation will be at liberty to terminate the agreement has been taken in terrorem, is not part of brochure, cannot be a basis of termination of the agreement.
5. The fifth point is that the Corporation has not tried to find out the passing of matriculation examination by the petitioner as a private candidate rather an enquiry has been conducted in a peculiar strange manner with respect to Surendra Karmali and never any effort was made find out about the petitioner to have passe
A.K. Kripak & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Aligarh Muslim University & Ors. Vs. Mansoor Ali Khan
Central Airmen Selection Board & Anr. Vs. Surendra Kumar Das
Dharampal Satyapal Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati & Ors.
Fedco (P) Limited and another Vs. S.N.Bilgrami & ors.
Guru Nanak Dev University Vs. Sanjay Kumar Katwal & Anr.
Lillykutty Vs. Scrutiny Committee, SC & ST & Ors.
Manoj Kumar Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Prestige Lights Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India
Ram Chandra Singh vs. Savitri and others
Ram Preeti Yadav Vs. U.P. Board of High School & Intermediate Education & Ors.
Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. The International Airport Authority of India and Ors.
S.L.Kapoor Vs. Jagmohan & Ors.
S.P. Chengalyaraya Naidu V. Jagannath
Shiv Kant Yadav Vs. Indian Oil Corporation & Ors.
Shri Krishna Vs. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra
Suresh Sajeesh Babu K. Vs. N.K. Santosh and others
Tax Officer, Banaras & Ors. Vs. Kanhaiya Lal Mukundlal Saraf
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.