Point of Law : Once it is established that the order was obtained by a successful party by practising or playing fraud, it is vitiated. Such order cannot be held legal, valid or in consonance with law.

JUDGMENT :

By the present application, the applicant, who was the writ petitioner in WP(C)/66/2019 has prayed for review of the order dated 02.12.2020 passed in the said writ petition. By the said order dated 02.12.2020, the aforesaid WP(C)/66/2019 was dismissed.

2. The principal ground for filing the present application for review is that while adjudicating the writ petition, fraud was played upon this Court wherein a forged document was introduced in the proceedings which was clinching in nature, as a result of which the decision which was taken in the writ petition tilted in favour of the respondent no. 3. It is the specific case of the applicant that the fraud was detected much after the judgment was rendered and thereafter the present application has been filed.

3. Before going to the issue which has arisen for determination in this case, it would be convenient to state the facts, bereft of minute details.

4. An advertisement was issued by the consortium of OIL Marketing Companies (OMC) dated 12.06.2018 for distributorship of LPG Cylinders (Domestic/Commercial). As per the guidelines concerning the eligibility of the intending bidders, the Location of the proposed distributorship for the present case was Rajamayong village in the district of Morigaon. The review applicant being eligible for grant of such distributorship had applied for the same which was to be decided by draw of lots amongst the eligible bidders who were compartmentalized in three categories on a preferential basis in which the petitioner was categorized in the first category. In the said category, the respondent no. 3 was also empanelled and in the draw of lots, the respondent no. 3 was selected.

5. Making a specific allegation that the location offered by the respondent no. 3 was not in the Rajamayong village as required and notified in the advertisement dated 12.06.2018, the applicant had filed the aforesaid writ petition WP(C)/66/2019. The said writ petition was however dismissed by this Court vide order dated 02.12.2020 on the primary basis of a verification report dated 04.09.2018 allegedly issued by the Circle Officer, Mayong Revenue Circle wherein it has been stated that the location of the respondent no. 3 was in Rajamayong (Hatimuria Kissam).

6. As the applicant was sanguine about the fact that the location of the respondent no. 3 was not in the prescribed Rajamayong village, on further enquiry with the authorities the applicant was astonished to learn that the verification report dated 04.09.2018 which was placed before this Court at the time of adjudication was a forged one as the copy of the said verification report available in the file in the Office of the Circle Officer was not the same. It is the specific case of the applicant that the actual letter bearing no. MYC 3/2018/389 dated 04.09.2018 issued by the Circle Officer, Mayong Revenue Circle states that the plot of land shown as the location by the respondent no. 3 which is covered by Dag No. 248 of Patta No. 183 of Hatimuria Kissam under Mayong Mauza (close to Rajamayong Kissam) belongs to the respondent no. 3. The forgery done in the said letter is that instead of "Hatimuria Kissam under Mayong Mauza (close to Rajamayong Kissam)", "Rajamayong (Hatimuria Kissam) under Mayong Mauza" has been incorporated. To dispel any doubts, the applicant had also examined the jamabandi document of the respondent no. 3 with regard to the land in question and found that the land is situated at Hatimuria village and not in Rajamayong village and both the aforesaid villages are separate revenue villages. Accordingly, the present review application has been filed.

7. I have heard Shri UK Nair, learned Senior Counsel along with Shri NK Kalita, learned counsel for the review applicant. The IOC is represented by Shri DK Sarmah, learned Standing Counsel whereas the Revenue Department, State of Assam is represented by Shri J. Handique, learned Standing Counsel. The respondent no. 3 is represented by Shri J. Patowary,