Fraud vitiates every solemn act. Misrepresentation amounts to fraud. Any forgery cannot be accepted by the court, especially when there has been a manipulation of official records.

JUDGMENT

S.K. Mishra, J. The petitioner in this writ application assails the selection of opposite party no.4 as a retail dealer for Petrol/Diesel of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. at Saatmile Chhak, Dist. Dhenkanal on the Cuttack-Sambalpur Highway.

2. Opposite party no.3 advertised in daily newspaper on 23.08.2011 for award of MS/HSD Retail outlet Dealership of BPCL at Saatmile Chhak, Dist. Dhenkanal in pursuance whereof, the petitioner and opposite party no.4 applied. After scrutiny of the applications, opposite party no.3 invited the applicant and opposite party no.4 for interview. The petitioner, who is an ex-Navy Officer having retired in the rank of Hon. Sub-Lieutenant, claims that he has fulfilled all the requirements as per the aforesaid advertisement. He further contends that he has requisite measure of land close to the Highway bearing plot no.90 of Hal Khata No.252 of Mouza-Baghaharia, Tahsil-Hindol, Dist. Dhenkanal.

3. Opposite party no.4 has submitted Record of Rights of mouza-Baghdharia of Hal Plot no.447 of Hal Khata No.260 having an area of Ac.1.020 decs. and Hal Plot No.459 of Hal Khata No.260 of an area of Ac.1.130 decimals. Further, opposite party no.4 has also shown the area under Plot no.439 corresponding to Hal Khata No.146 under the Kisam ‘Abada Jogya Anabadi’ and ‘Parbat Dui’ of an area of Ac.26,600 decs., wherein a public road is to be constructed without changing the Kisam of the land by due process of law. Hal Plot nos.447 and 459 under Hal Khata no.260 are not connected with any public road. The public road and such other lands of opposite party no.4 is intervened by the Government land under Hal Plot No.439 corresponding to Hal Khata no.146, wherein 33 KV/11 KV. electric line runs. Besides over Hal Plot No.447 corresponding to Khata No.260 of opposite party no.4, the said high voltage line is also running, wherein the petrol/diesel pump cannot co-exist under the high tension electric line.

4. The petitioner further pleads that the opposite party no.4 has obtained an order for construction of narrow public road deviating the norms and procedure for converting the Kissam of the Government land of Mountain-2 (Parbat-Dui) without observing the formalities of conversion or of due process of law; such as inviting objections from public, notification in the local newspapers etc. Hence, the opposite party no.4 has manipulated and forged the concerned documents in connivance with the Revenue authorities.

5. In the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner further pleads that the opposite party no.4 has submitted forged permission granted by the Sub-Collector vide RMC No.1 of 2011 dated 02.07.2011, which was meant for HPCL and not for BPCL. In other words, it is pleaded by the petitioner that the permission granted by the Revenue Authorities for use of the Government land for the purpose of connecting public road with the site, wherein oppose party no.4 intends to construct his Petrol/Diesel pump, has been granted to the petitioner for running a petrol pump by the Hindustan Petroleum Co. Ltd. and not by Bharat Petroleum Co. Ltd. Hence, it is contended that opposite party no.4 has obtained the dealership from the BPCL by producing forged documents.

6. In order to assess the factual position as to how the opposite party no.4 has obtained an order of the Revenue authorities, the original records of R.M.C. No.1 of 2011 was called for and on being produced by the Standing Counsel, the same has been perused. It is apparent from the case records that originally the order was considered on 02.07.2011 granting permission to the opposite party to use the land for entrance purpose of HPCL Petrol Pump. However, from the order it is clear that “HPCL” has been over-written to read “BPCL”. In other words, the letter ‘H’ has been over-written to read as letter ‘B’. From the application filed by the petitioner, it is also clear that there has been a correction in the application form. Originally, the application has been filed f