IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1476 of 2010 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Water Resources Department, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna. 4. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Flood Control, Anisabad, Patna. . . . . . . . Respondents 1 to 4 in writ application / Appellants. Versus UMESH KUMAR, Son of Late Shri Bangali Gope, resident of Nandgaon, P.O.-Shastri Nagar, P.S.- Shastri Nagar, District- Patna. . . . . . . Petitioner in writ application / Respondent. For the Appellants : Mrs. Nilu Agrawal, G.A.-6 Mr. Zaki Haider, AC to G.A.-6 For the Respondent : M/s Barun Kr. Choudhary, Manish Kumar, Sachin Thakur, Advs. ----------- 5/ 17.01.2011 1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 18.02.2010, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 14558 of 2003, whereby the writ petition has been allowed, the impugned order dated 27.06.2003, and the consequential order dated 04.07.2003, have been set aside. By these two orders, the services of the writ petitioner had been dispensed with in the circumstances indicated herein below. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this appeal may be indicated. The Koshi river 2 in certain areas of the State of Bihar creates devastation by partly or wholly submerging the lands of the cultivators. In order to give relief from the calamity created by the river, the State Government prepared a scheme to rehabilitate them elsewhere. The scheme included persons of the category of writ petitioner, which have been described by the learned Single Judge in his order as follows: “… The counter affidavit then goes on to state that the petitioner resides in between the two „Bandhs” of Koshi and when the water level rises, he seeks protection of a safe place…” The terms and conditions incorporated in the policy decision, inter alia, states that 50 per cent of the available posts shall be filled up by the candidates of the various reserved category from amongst whom 15 per cent would be reserved for such displaced persons. The writ petitioner was one such person, who was appointed by the Rehabilitation officer on 31.12.1984. After show-cause notice and consideration of the relevant materials, his services were dispensed with by order dated 27.06.2003, read with the consequential order dated 04.07.2003, which have been set aside by a learned Single Judge. Hence this appeal at the instance of State Government. 3 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 4. Orders were passed in individual cases leading to a large number of writ petitions in this Court, which either failed at the writ petition stage, or were allowed but the appeals of the State Government were allowed. Perhaps the earliest appeal at the instance of the State Government was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court by its judgment dated 29.01.2003, passed in L.P.A. No. 675 of 2002 (The State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Prashant Kumar Sharma), reported in 2003(2) PLJR 27, whereby the orders of the learned Single Judge were set aside, and the impugned orders of the authorities dispensing with the services of the individuals were upheld. The appeal preferred by some of the writ petitioners bearing Civil Appeal No. 5682-5684/2004 (Siyaram Chaudhary & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.), were dismissed. 5. Another batch of appeals came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (S.K. Katriar, J), was a party. Relying on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in case of 4 The State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Prashant Kumar Sharma (supra), the batch of appeals, namely, the State of Bihar Vs. Sheo Shankar, reported in 2008(3) PLJR 363, and the analogous appeals, were allowed by the Division Bench of this Court. 6. We are convinced that the present appeal is entirely covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in The State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Prashant Kumar Sharma, and The State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Sheo Shankar (Supra). It is relevant to state that, after the State Government had noticed abuse of the scheme, it had taken steps to dispense with the services of the beneficiaries, and had filed First Information Report (s) against its own functionaries. As it appears from the two judgments, the trial was then pending. 7. The learned Government Advocate has rightly relied on the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Lazarus Estates, Ltd. V. Beasley, reported in [1956] 1 All E.R. 341, wherein it is stated that fraud unravels everything. It then becomes the duty of the authorities as well as this Court to nullify the benefits which have accrued to different persons in pursuance of acts of fraud. The relevant portion of the 5 judgment is reproduced herein below: “If this argument is correct, the landlords would profit greatly from their fraud. The increase in rent would pay the fine many times over. I cannot accede to this argument for a moment. No court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud. No judgment of a court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything. The court is careful not to find fraud unless it is distinctly pleaded and proved; but once it is proved it vitiates judgments, contracts and all transactions whatsoever; see, as to deeds, Collins V. Blantern (2) (1767) (2 Wils. K.B. 342), as to judgments, Duchess of Kingston‟s Case (3) (1776) (1 Leach 146), and as to contracts, Master V. Miller (4) (1791) (4 Term Rep. 320). So here I am of opinion that, if this declaration is proved to have been false and fraudulent, it is a nullity and void and the landlords cannot recover any increase of rent by virtue of it.” 8. We must consider the order dated 11.08.2009 passed by a Division Bench of this Court of which one of us ((S. K. Katriar, J.) was a party, whereby L.P.A. No. 1380 of 1999 (The State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Roop Kant Paswan), was dismissed, and the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dispensing with the services of allegedly similarly circumstanced persons was set aside with consequential relief. The appeal preferred by the State of Bihar before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court bearing 6 Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) CC 18380/2010 (State of Bihar & Ors Vs. Roop Kant Paswan), was rejected by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court by the following order: “Delay condoned. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed on facts.” It appears to us that Roop Kant Paswan and Umesh Kumar were the appointees under the same scheme. The order on the writ petition of Roop Kant Paswan, and the order of the Division Bench in Appeal, were passed on the sole ground that the authorities, while dispensing with the services of Roop Kant Paswan, had not considered the allegedly forged certificate because he was unable to produce the same. This Court had taken the view that the certificate was available in the records of the State Government and, therefore, it was unjust and unreasonable to reject his case on such tenuous ground. It was open to the authorities to peruse the correctness of the certificate from their own records and then proceed to determine the correctness. The stay order dated 11.08.2009 passed in L.P.A. No. 1380 of 1999, also does not help the writ petitioner in the present appeal. 7 The State Government noticed after quite some time that, taking advantage of the policy decision in question, a large number of functionaries of the State Government in collusion with such persons as the present writ petitioner, issued fake certificates showing them to be displaced persons, so as to be covered by the scheme. It was further found that such a large number of false certificates had been uniformly issued in such individual cases, and had on the strength of such certificates been initially appointed by the Rehabilitation Officer, who was not the appointing authority, as a result of which the State Government took steps to issue individual notices to such appointees to examine their cases separately. 9. In the result, this appeal is allowed, and the writ petition is dismissed. The orders dated 27.06.2003, and 04.07.2003, are hereby upheld. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Uday/ (S.K. Katriar, J.) (S. P. Singh, J.)