"p- ^ C ^-^cs-^- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDLCATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT.BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. '""OF 2006 PETITIONER / SMT. NEERA MANHAR, WIFE OF SHRI SUKHIRAM MANHAR, AGED t" \ ABOUT 32 YEARS, SARPANCH ^** .0/' ^ ^ *.'"" ^ ^f^y y. '^'".^ / ^.c^ •%"/ ^ •^ u^^^' ^yi^ ^.^^'^0'0" ^As"^^ ^. aBSPONDENTS ,/1) ^-•^^^~ ..»"»< \^^ ..i-vls'.,L^/~- 3®$1&'5) ^^y%^ GRAM PANCHAYAT THOOTHI, R/0. VILLAGE THOOTHI, TAHSIL JAUAIPUR DISTRICT JANJGIR- CHAMPA (C.G.) VERSUS Dr.B.L.TIWARL PnLI.RPTOT? '' "(P^./&;ll&st";;:. T-^';1nir.-.Ch^.-ca " ^^I^L^./ 'O^.^.l* ^^ '^- ^rf ^-'- .^'- ^ ^1 J':: • ' ^ ^.!--i- -n "" ^/s •L'-. .;.r * •Fh^ -^-fc PRESENT COLLECTOR, KABIRDHAM KAWARDHA (C.G.) , : 3.) SHANTI BAI, WIDOW OF BHUKHAN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/0. THOOTHI, TAHSIL JAUAIPUR DISTRICT JANJGIR-CHAMPA (C.G.) ;4) STATEOF CHHATTISGARH' ACTING THROUGH SECRETARY PANCHAYAT DEPARTMENT, DKS BHAWAN, RAIPUR (C.G.) ./^ >^ i. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 QF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT/WRITS, DIRECTION/DIRECTIONS etc. ORDER/ORDERS, i! II t^?^. ^^^ira; :• ^^ ^:: WSt': ^;%Ki"^ BR^ iSSS^:. ••"• fc.. -TSf^ fiS^tS!& KK' ^ ^'SHsBt .! ~^te. HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WntItetitioaNo. 4202of2006 I'etitiDacr Siat Neera Manhar Versus Kespoadeiits Ex CoBector, Jaajgtr Champa & othcrs SB: Honlale Mr. JiMtice SaUsIt K. AgBUiotatl, J Shri K. A. Ausan,SenlorAdvocate wifh Steri Imtyaz AM, Advocate for ::fhepetitioner. :••••. ••-''•'•'''• ; : • ; ;; .' • •'• :' ';': . 1 ' :' ::1: Shri N. K. Agrawal, Depu^ Gcwernment Advocate with SIu-t SusIiM Dubey, Govt Advocate for flie respondents No. 1 and 3. NOBB fbr fhe TespOadeHt No.2. Miss PusIqACwxveidi, Advoeate•for tUe Caweator. ORDER (Passed oafhis7<lld^ofDeceniber, 2006), 1. TUe petitioner lia^impugnficl fhe oi^r dated 18.3;20Q6 P/I2) passed by fhe GoBectnr m Paxtcfaayat Case No. 3'7/A- 89/(23)/2004-2Q05 wberem the enfee proceedn^ was aicld ex-parte after recording fhat fhe petttfoner declinfid toi^^re notice and thereafter ttoe notiee was afflxed. The pcttdflinfir, ^aa eleGted Sarpancti of Gisua Paiichayat ThoOthi,;Jaapad^IlMM3hiHyat Jaijaipur, Bistrict- Jaajgu- CUampa, was^ 3ie]ffs^^ 'distpjiaBBsd uader the ;proivisioas of Sectton 36 (aa)i,o£ith&gl^neliayat Raj. Adttuiyam. 1993^ The p<^ of" S^ucpaBeli^w^^ooi'da^it^ dectoed :. asvacaat..,": •: ! :. . '.':: ^;;. '•.... .:'.:. '. .1'. 2, The petitipncr beiag a^ri^we^^Saeas^^ petition^ befbre the CSoUeGtor,; •wlio ^ fflsHussc<lK3U^^ yide ^MKier datea. 25.7.2Q(^ ;iEAaajKNi^.;I^;^^ <^ ^ gc^^ 'ttlat fhCTe is ;IK) provistEUi; for review ;o£3t^ order p^sed 1y ^^^t^ CoIteGtoi. The!^ Rs*@ '"s~T i. ; -. < 4. ^f petitioner can veiy wctt go in appeal or revision uuder thc provisions ofSection 91 ofthe Adhinlyatn, 1993. Shri K. A. Ansari, learaed Senior Advocate appeanag for the petitioner reUed on a decision of the Supreme Court ia fhe case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajendia Singh & others { (2000) 3 SCC 581} in support ofhis submission that iffhe oider has been obtained by comHuttnig fiaud, then every Courts or Tribunals, u-respective ofthe fact whether power ofreview before it is provided or not, it has to review its order. Ttus judgment of ttie Supreine Court was cited before fhe CoUector also ia review petition. The CoUector has coiapletefy ^nored the decision of fhe Suprerae Court, observuig that ftie saiae is not applicable to fhe case. Haviag heard leamed coiinsel for the parties and having perused the record, a show cause notice contaiued a inere mention fhat "^ ^ ?^R l^qT ". Thereafter, the same was scored out and it was recorded, fhe notice -was aEBxed ia accordauce with law. Where (he noti.ee was affixed and at what tuae the notice was afiBxed te not indicated. The words "^ ^ ?q»R few " was also scored out Proin the reading of the notice it is clear titiat fhe finding ofthe CoUector in his order dated l3,3.2006"ai-1|^R<t)t SRT gqgr •Ttfca ^ ^ ?q»R ^IT ^Pff 1 flt 3^ ^R°T TOTait •itfc'B TfWSf ^ vvss ^PIT f r ^ dpfter feifT ^PIT F is factually mcorrect. Further looking iato fhe report of fhe S.D.O.(Revenue) Sakti, addressed to the Deputy Director, Panchayat & Social Welfare, Jaajgir Cbam.pa, fhe Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) has reported that fhe youngest child of the petitioner Ku. Atit was boru before 26th Jaauary, 2001 i.e. on 12.8.2000. The CoUector has proceeded r.r' ^iWkW ex-parte, ignormg tbe report of thc Sub Divisional Officer without affording aa opportunity ofhearfag to the petitioner. 5. The facts of fhis case are squarety covered by fhe decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Unlted India Insiuance Co. Ltd. (supra) whereia ia paragraphs 13, 14 and 16 has held as under:- "13. In S.P, Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagaoiiafh2 fhe two- Judge Bench ofthis Court held: (SCC p. 2, para 1) "Fraud avoids aU judicial acts, ecclesiastical or teiaporal' observed ChiefJustice Edward Coke ofEngiaad about fhree centuries ago. It is the settled piopositioa of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playiug fiaud on fhe court is a nuUity and non est in the cyes of ]aw. Such a judgnient/decree - by fhe first court or by the highest court - has to be treated as a nutlity by every court, whether superior or inferior. It caa be chaUenged in. any court even ta coUateral proceedings,' 14. In Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (Indi^ (F^ Ltd.3 anofher two-Judge Bench, after making reference to a niunber of earlier decteions rendered by different High Coiuts ia India, stated fhe legal positton ttius: (SCC p. 563, para 23) "23. Siace fiaud affects the soleumity, regularily aad orderliness ofthc proceedings ofthe court and also ainounts to au abuse of the process of court, fh.e courts have been held to have inherent power to set aside aa order obteined by fi'aud practised upon ffaat coiut, Smularly, where the cozut is misled by a party or fhe court itself cominits a inistake whicli prejudices a party, fh.e court has tfae uilierent power to recaU its order." 16. Thepefore, we have no doubt tfaat fhe remedy to move for recaBing the order on fhe basis ofthe itewty-discovered facte amoimting to fi-aud of high degree, caanot be foreclosed in such a situation. No coiut or tribunal can bc regaidcd as powerless to recall its own oider if it is conviuced fhat the order was waagled through fi-aud or naisrepresentation of sucb a dimensioa as would affect tbe veiy basis of the claun.' In tfae case on haad, the order dated 13.3.2006 was clearly passed on fhe basM of inis-representation inadc by the appUcaat/respondent No. 2 (Shanti Bai). The appUcant did not produce the enquuy report sent to fhe Deputy Director, Panchayat & Social Welfare, Janjgir Champa by the Sub Divisfonal Officer (Revenue). The fact wifh regard to refusal of notice by the non- appUcant/petitioner was also contrary to fhe record, as stated above. Thus, the anpugned order appears to have been obtained on mis-representation offhe facts. For fhe reasons aforementioned and the dictum. laid down by fhe Supreme Coiirt, the petition is aUowed and the iinpugaed orders dated 13.3.2006 and 25.7.2006 are quashed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ,/ >