CWP No.22637 of 2010 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.22637 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.08.2011 P.S. Sawhney, 130 Sector 45-A, Chandigarh ... Petitioner Versus Union of India, Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, New Delhi and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. P.S. Sawhney, petitioner in person. Mr. Rajinder Ghai, respondents No.3 in person. None for others. ***** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner who appears in person seeks for recall of an order passed by this Court in CWP No.5075 of 1982 on 31.05.2000. The petitioner's contention is that the third respondent had obtained an allotment from the Chandigarh Housing Board by fraud by virtue of fact that he had been a Legal Officer in the Housing Board and he took the allotment although he was not entitled to the same. To a specific question directed to the petitioner as to how he is aggrieved by the order, his response is that he is not interested in the property but he is concerned about a respondent who has secured an order by deceit. I cannot make any intervention in favour of the petitioner when he has himself no stake involved in the litigation. The petitioner refers me to a CWP No.22637 of 2010 (O&M) [2] decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in “Bank of India and another v. Avinash D. Mandivikar and others” that dealt with a case of termination of service on that basis of a caste certificate, which was invalid. The lesson that the petitioner would draw from this judgment is that fraud vitiates all proceedings and that therefore, the Court would be justified in making an intervention. I would cast the petitioner's case out of reckoning on a rule of standing that a person does not litigate in a Court unless he has interest in subject matter. The petitioner, who is a retired Teacher in an education institute, has concerns for purity in life and that no one secures any relief in Court by practice of fraud. The alleged practice of fraud which is susceptible to challenge shall be only at the instance of a person who is defrauded or who has come to harm by a wrongful act of the respondent. I am not prepared to examine the issue brought at the instance of a chance litigant. 2. The petition is dismissed as not maintainable. ( K. KANNAN ) AUGUST 23, 2011 JUDGE Rajan