LexCHANDRO DEVI & ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 8 S.C.R. 653 CHANDRO DEVI & ETC. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. (Civi!Appea!Nos.11360-11361of2017) SEPTEMBER 08, 2017 [MADAN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.) Lease: Grant of lease of shops - For rehabilitation of ex-servicemen A B - By Army Station Commander - Lease granted for a period of 11 C months which was renewable from year to year - Jn the year 2007 po1icy introduced whereby lease was not to be extended/renewed beyond 5 years - Leases of the lease-holders were cancelled - Appellants-lease-holders challenged non-renewal of their leases - Single Judge of High Court dismissed the writ petitions - Letters D Patent appeals were also dismissed - Some petitioners filed SLP which were dismissed - Thereafter review petitions were filed by the petitioners who had not approached Supreme Court as well as those who had approached Supreme Court - Dismissal of review petitions .- On appeal, plea that the letter on which the courts below had placed reliance, being a draft letter, a fraud was committed by the E Government upon the Court and hence the whole action based on this fraud was vitiated - Held: Every wrong action is not a fraudulent action - The fact that the letter was a draft letter does not show that it was fraudulently introduced by Union of India - Mere allegations of fraud made for the first time before Supreme Court is not sufficient F - From the facts case, it is evident that no guidelines have been framed with regard to the shops on defence lands created out of Government was authorised to issue the SOP dated 1 J'h April, 2007 - There is nothing arbitrary in the policy of SOP 2007- Fraud. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: Civil Appeal No. 11360 of 2017: If there is fraud, which leads to passing of a judgment, then fraud vitiates all actions taken consequent to such fraud and this would mean that the judgment would be set aside. Every wrong action is not a -fraudulent action. In the present .case, assuming that the letter 653 G H 654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 8 S.C.R. A dated 4th September, 2008 (on the basis of which the High Court dismissed the writ petitions) was only a draft letter, it does not mean that this letter was fraudulently introduced by the Union of India. In the letter placed before the court, the word 'DGL' find mention. It may be true that the counsel for the Union of India B did not inform the court that the words 'DGL' stood for 'Draft Government Letter', but, it is equally true that even the counsel for the appellant did not make any efforts to find out what the words 'DGL' stood for. Even the Court did not look into this aspect. Fraud has to be pleaded and proved. Mere allegations of fraud made for the first time in this Court are not sufficient. It C does not mean that the Court is approving the action of the Union of India in putting forth this letter before the Court. However, it cannot be said that this improper act is a fraudulent action on the part of the Union of India. The Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court did place reliance on this letter and D since this letter is now said to be a draft Government letter only, the Court may ignore it for the purposes of deciding this case. Even if this letter is ignored, the appellant cannot benefit in view of clause 17 of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) dated 10th August, 2001. (Para 71 (658-C-Fl E 2. It is not correct to say that in view of letter dated 25th February, 2005 the Station Commander had no authority to issue the second SOP for management and control of shopping complexes on 13th April, 2007. No doubt, vide letter dated 25th February, 2005 the Ministry of Defence proposed to take over the management of all shopping complexes and to frame F guidelines in this regard, but as per Para 3 of this letter, amendments to clause 2(v) would be applicable from 1 âĒt April 2005 or from the date when the guidelines/rules, as envisaged in clause 2(vi) are framed, whichever is later. The Ministry of Defence issued Defence Shopping Complexes (Maintenance and G Administration) Rules in the year 2006. It is the case of the appellant herself that these Rules are not applicable to shops constructed on defence lands by public funds. Therefore, as per the appellant, these rules are not applicable to the present case. The guidelines circulated vide letter dated 4th September, 2008 H CHANDRO DEVI & ETC. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.