Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.
State Of Bihar - Appellant
Versus
Ram Chandra Singh - Respondent
First Appeal No. 12 of 2004
Decided On : 07-08-2020
JAWARHAR ROJGAR YOJANA - FRAUD - SECTION 80 OF CPC - WAIVER OF COMPLIANCE - URGENCY - CIRCULAR GUIDING IMPLEMENTATION OF JAWARHAR ROJGAR YOJANA - CIRCULAR VIOLATION - ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES - NOMINATION OF AGENT - COMPETENCY OF AUTHORITIES - TECHNICAL SANCTION - ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTION - ESTIMATE BIFURCATION - ILLEGAL GAIN - COLLUSIVE ACTIVITIES - FORGED DOCUMENT - SATLUJ JAL VIDYUT NIGAM VS. RAJ KUMAR RAJINDER SINGH - FRAUD VITIATES EVERY SOLEMN PROCEEDING - RAM CHANDRA SINGH VS. SAVITRI DEVI - FRAUD AND JUSTICE NEVER DWELL TOGETHER - MADHUKAR SADHBA SHIVARKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - FRAUDULENT ACT ON PART OF DECLARANTS - JAI NARAIN PARASRAMPURIA VS. PUSHPA DEVI SARAF - ANY ORDER OR DECREE OBTAINED BY PRACTISING FRAUD IS A NULLITY - STATE OF A.P. VS. T. SURYACHANDRA RAO - FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION IS CALLED DECEIT - ROSHAN DEEN VS. PREETI LAL - FRAUD UNRAVELS EVERYTHING - A.V. PAPAYYA SASTRY VS. STATE OF A.P. - JUDGMENT, DECREE OR ORDER OBTAINED BY FRAUD HAS TO BE TREATED AS A NULLITY - S.P. CHENGALVARAYA NAIDU VS. JAGANNATH - A PERSON, WHOSE CASE IS BASED ON FALSEHOOD, HAS NO RIGHT TO APPROACH THE COURT.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a member of an NGO, sought a declaration that the order stopping the construction work of a bridge over Tilawe river was illegal and improper. He had been appointed as an agent by the Block Development Officer and had executed an agreement. He had taken out a loan and purchased construction materials. While the work was going on, he was instructed to stop the construction work. He filed a representation before the Collector, which was not considered. He filed a CWJC, which was allowed, remitting the matter to the Collector for fresh consideration. The Collector directed the plaintiff to produce all the materials before the District Rural Agency, which was instructed to purchase those items. The plaintiff filed a suit for the relief sought.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff had not complied with Section 80 of the CPC, which requires a notice to be served on the government or a public officer before a suit can be instituted against them. The court also found that the plaintiff had not obtained the necessary approvals and sanctions for the construction of the bridge. The court further found that the plaintiff had engaged in collusive activities with the authorities in order to obtain illegal gain. The court concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief sought.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff had complied with Section 80 of the CPC? 2. Whether the plaintiff had obtained the necessary approvals and sanctions for the construction of the bridge? 3. Whether the plaintiff had engaged in collusive activities with the authorities in order to obtain illegal gain?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff had not complied with Section 80 of the CPC, which requires a notice to be served on the government or a public officer before a suit can be instituted against them. The court also held that the plaintiff had not obtained the necessary approvals and sanctions for the construction of the bridge. The court further held that the plaintiff had engaged in collusive activities with the authorities in order to obtain illegal gain. The court concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief sought.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed and the judgment of the lower court was set aside.
JUDGMENT
Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J. - Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 14.08.2003 and decree dated 27.08.2003 passed by the learned Sub-Judge-VIII, East Champaran at Motihari in Title Suit No.107 of 1998/174 of 2002, whereby and whereunder the suit has been decreed on contest with cost, the defendant-appellants challenged the same by way of instant appeal.
It looks wise to address the parties by their original status as they stood before the learned lower court.
2. Briefly stated the case of the parties are as follows: Respondent-plaintiff asking for the relief that on an adjudication of the facts and circumstances the order of the defendants be declared illegal, improper, arbitrary, whereby the order to stop with the work of allotted tender as well as for recovery of Rs.50,000/- so paid as an advance amount, a decree for Rs.3,00,000/- with proper interest be passed till realisation of the amount in lieu of expenses so incurred during course of purchase of construction materials as well as, expenses incurred in digging plinth, removal of accumulated water, construction up to plinth as per work order issued by the defendants in his favour, injuncting the defendants permanently from allotting the construction work of bridge over Tilawe river to somebody else, any other relief or reliefs which the plaintiff is entitled for and for that, pleaded that the plaintiff happens to be a member of All India Centre for Urban and Rural Development (NGO) having with district office at Miscot, Motihari, East Champaran who coming to know about the proposal for construction of R.C.C. bridge over Tilawe river near Fular village, advanced his candidature. After technical sanction at the end of the Executive Engineer, N.R.E., Motihari (defendant no.5) on the basis of which, the administrative sanction of Rs.4,99,500/4,99,800/- was granted by the Deputy Development Commissioner (defendant no.2) vide letter no.1584 dated 01.10.1994. Subsequently thereof, the request of the plaintiff was acceded with. Whereupon, he was appointed as an agent by the Block Development Officer, Turkauliya vide letter dated 3/4.10.1994 and as directed, the plaintiff executed an agreement on 04.10.1994 which was accepted by the Block Development Officer, Turkauliya on the same day. After consulting the Collector, issued work order and, further instructed, to start work on war footing after investing at his end as, at that very moment fund was not available. It was assured at the end of the Block Development Officer, Turkauliya that as soon as fund will be made available, payment will be made to him. On that very assurance, the plaintiff took out Rs.1,17,000/- from his Savings Account No.960 lying at Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Harsidhi as well as also took loan from his close relatives, friends and then, initiated the work. In due course of time, fund came. Whereupon, on 28.10.1994, the Block Development Officer, Turkauliya granted Rs.50,000/- as an advance. For the purpose of construction of the bridge, the plaintiff brought 300 bags of cement, 4000 cft. stone chips, 4000 cft. Sone sand, bricks worth of Rs.50,000/- and had also spent Rs.20,000/- in dewatering the area as well as Rs.15,000/- in plinth digging and Rs.40,000/- as carriage expenses.
While the work was going on, he became very much surprised on receiving an instruction on 27.11.1994 from the Block Development Officer, Turkauliya to stop the construction work in pursuance of the order dated 23.11.1994 followed with 26.11.1994 passed by the Collector, East Champaran. The aforesaid event is found duly recorded in Misc. File No.01/1994-95.
It has further been disclosed that the plaintiff had already requested the Block Development Officer, Banjariya on 19.11.1994 to visit the site in order to verify the construction work and, there should be entrustment to Assistant Engineer as well as Junior Engineer for supervising the casting work as well as to measure the work already completed. Then, it has
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
