THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. Vs. MADAN MOHAN HALDER & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal arises out of a judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge on 14th March, 2016, in WP 33990 (W) of 2013 with CAN 9717 of 2015 (Madan Mohan Halder v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.). The appellants herein are the Chief Executive Officer, the Special Secretary, the Administrative Officer and Estate Manager and the Deputy Director (Marketing & Management) of the Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority. For convenience, the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is set out here-in-below in its entirety:-

(2.) In the instant appeal, the main ground which is sought to be urged is the aspect of fraud and it is contended by the appellants that the learned Single Judge did not consider this issue in its proper perspective and ought to have dismissed the writ petition on such ground alone.

(3.) We are well aware of the settled proposition of law with regard to fraud-whenever practised-goes to the root of any matter. Also, fraud vitiates all bona fide and solemn acts in respect of any proceeding, the moment the same is detected. We are also aware of the proposition of law that a plea of fraud can be taken at any stage of a proceeding before a Court of law. However, the facts of the instant case - which are spelt out in details in the impugned judgment and order, as reproduced here-in-above-clearly reveal that all these factors were taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge. It is startling to note from the admitted position that prior to the filing of the last writ petition, the petitioner had approached the writ Court earlier on at least two occasions on the same issue, once in the year 2009 and the next time in the year 2012. On each such occasion, the writ Court had issued directions upon Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority to consider the representation of the writ petitioner and at both stages, the concerned authority of Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority rejected the same. Between 17th February, 2006-when the writ petitioner made an application to the Deputy Director of Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority seeking permission to pay a balance amount of Rs. 23,005/- together with interest and such permission having been granted on 11th July, 2006, to enable him to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 1,24,674/- by 30th September, 2006-till the last writ petition was taken for hearing, the aspect of fraud was never the plea of the Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority. Rather, we find that when Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority passed an order on 18th January, 2013, it was said that this decision of acceptance of balance amount from the petitioner was made by mistake. In another place, it was said that there were procedural irregularities, yet in another place it was claimed that the balance consideration was accepted due to inadvertence. All these aspects were duly considered by the learned Single Judge, including the plea of fraud as sought to be raised for the first time at the time of hearing of the last writ petition. In this context, we intend to requote the observation made by the learned Single Judge in the judgment and order-which has already been quoted earlier-which specifically deals with the aspect of fraud, as alleged: