Holding

The High Court erred in relying on a sample of five cases; each claim under the Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme must be individually examined, and a retired judge was appointed to verify the 354 suspect claims.

Summary

The petitioners challenged the grant of Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme benefits to a large number of persons in Beed district who were either not born during the freedom struggle or were toddlers at independence, alleging fraud and false claims. The Bombay High Court had constituted an enquiry committee, which reported the claims as bogus, but the Court later examined only five sample cases and dismissed the writ petitions, holding the committee's report unreliable. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by relying on a sampling method; each claim must be individually scrutinised to protect the scheme’s purpose of honouring genuine freedom fighters. The Court directed that a retired Bombay High Court judge be appointed to examine all 354 suspect cases within four months, giving claimants an opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, overturning the High Court’s dismissal of the writ petitions.

Issues considered

The validity of the High Court's method of examining only five sample cases to assess the legitimacy of Freedom Fighters' pension claims.
Whether the enquiry committee's findings of fraud should be upheld or set aside.
Whether individual examination of each claim is required under the Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme.
The definition and applicability of "fraud" in the context of administrative law.

Legislation cited

Indian Contract Act, 1872s. 17

Subjects

Freedom Fighters' Pension SchemeFraudAdministrative LawSampling MethodEnquiry CommitteeMisrepresentationPublic Interest Litigation

Judgment

A BHAURAO DAGDU PARALKAR
v.
STA TE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

AUGUST 22, 2005
B
[ARIJIT PASA YAT AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.]

Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme :

Grant ofpensionary benefits to large number ofpeople under Freedom
C Fighters Pension Scheme-Writ petition filed on the ground that these grants
were based on false and bogus claims-Enquiry Committee after elaborate
analysis of material finding that the claimants were not even born when
the freedom fight was OIJ or were toddlers at the time of independence-
High Court merely taking sample of five cases and setting aside the writ
D petitions-Justification of-Held : High Court was not justified in lightly
interfering with the findings on suppositions and presumptions-Sampling
cannot be the method for determining the truth or otherwise of the
allegations or claims made-Each case was required to be individually
examined-A retired High Court Judge appointed to examine the cases.

E Words and Phrases-'Fraud'-Meaning of-Discussed.

The writ petition was filed before High Court challenging the grant
of"Sammanpatra", pensionary and other allied benefits to large number
of persons in the Beed District of Maharashtra, who were not even born
F or were toddlers when the freedom fight was on or the country got
independence. The prayer essentially was to hold detailed enquiry and
to cancel the pensionary benefits and for a direction to recover the
amounts which had already been paid along with the prayer for initia-
tion of criminal proceedings against the bogus claimants. The allegation
was that as many as 354 bogus claims have been allowed.
G
The High Court taking cognizance of the petitions and the serious
allegations made therein, constituted a three-member Enquiry
Committee, which submitted its report that the claims were bogus and
tainted with fraud. Thereafter, High Court took five sample cases and
H found that the report of the Enquiry Committee could not be accepted
774
BHAURAO DAGDU PARALKAR v. STATE 775

and the documents produced were sufficient to substantiate the claims A
. and accordingly dismissed the writ petitions.

In appeal to this court appellant contended that the approach of
the High Court in taking up 5 sample cases itself shows that it was not
adopting the proper course. The report of Committee was submitted. B
after elaborate analysis of the materials. The High Court should not
have lightly interfered with the findings on suppositions and presump-
tions.

Allowing the appeals, the Court

Held: I.I. The genuine freedom fighters deserve to be treated with
c
reverence, respect and honour. But at the same time it cannot be lost sight
of that people who had no role to play in the freedom struggle should not
be permitted to benefit from the liberal approach required to be adopted
in the case of the freedom fighters, most of whom in the normal course are
septuagenarians and octogenarians. It baffles one, beyond comprehension, D
when claim is made by a person "'ho was not even born during the freedom
struggle to be a freedom fighter. 1780-F, G]

1.2. Some of the beneficiaries were born in 1951 and some in 1955.
Accepting claims of such persons to be freedom fighters would be
E
making a mockery of the scheme, which is intended, for genuine free-
dom fighter. The approach of the High Court is clearly untenable.
Sampling cannot be the method of determining the truth or otherwise
of the allegations or claims made. Each case was required to be indi-
vidually examined. On that score alone, the High Court's judgment is
vulnerable. ]780-H; 781-A, BJ F
Mukundlal Bhandari v. Union ofIndia and Ors., AIR (1993) SC 2127;
Gurdial Singh v. Union ofIndia, (2001) AIR SCW 3843; Dr. Vim/av. Delhi
Administration, [1963] Supp. 2 SCR 585; Indian Bank v. Satyam Febres
(India) Pvt. Ltd, 11996] 5SCC550; SP. ChangalvarayaNaiduv.Jagannath,
]1994] 1 SCC 1; Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi and Ors., 12003] 8
G
SCC 319; Shrisht Dhawan (Smt.) v. Mis. Shaw Brothers, 11992] l SCC 534
and Gowrishankar v. Joshi AmbaShankar Family Trust, 11996] 3 SCC 310,
relied on.

•• Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal, ]2002] 1 SCC 100; Ram Preeti Yadav v. H
776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A UP. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, (2003) 8 SCC 311;
Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of T.N. and Another, [2004J 3 SCC 1 and State
ofAn~hra Pradesh and Anr. v. T. Suryachandra Rao, (2005) S SCALE 621,
referred to.

Webster's Third New International Dictionary; Concise Oxford Die-
B
tionary; Halsbury's Laws of England, referred to.

Derry and Ors. v. Peek, (1886-90) All ER 1; Khawaja v. Secretary
of State of Home Deptt., (1983) 1 Ail ER 765 and 1:-azarus Estate Ltd. v.
Beasley, (1956) I QB 702, referred to.
c
2. A retired Judge of the Bombay High Court is appointed to
examine the 354 cases. The relevant files shall be handed over to the
Commission immediately. The Commission is requested to complete the
verification within four months and submit its report to the State
Government for necessary action The claimants whose cases are to be
D examined shall be given opportunity to have their say before the Com-
mission. The records of the Zilla Gaurav Samittee, High Power Com-
mittee and the Committee appointed by the High Court shall be examined
by the Commission before issuing notice to the individual applicants to
decide the acceptability or otherwise of the claims for freedom fighters'
E pensions. On getting rep01::t of the Commission, the State Government
shall take necessary action. [785-C, DJ

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: CiviLAppeal No, 5162.:5167.
of 2005. ··.: ~

F From the Judgment and Order dated:l9.~3:'200-4rtlf-the :nomba)' High·
Court atAurartgabad in W.P:NC>S. 430, 431, 1:55112004~2619/2002~ 5498
and 5587 of 2003. . · .:. · '. · · ·. ' .
• • • • ". . . ~· ~ ~·(·\~~.:;..:-!-.; ~ -~
'f, l r •'r • • •' .·:'. •"

A.V. Savant and Nar~~h Kumar):·tii:tne.,/i1'Pe1Iant,;.
····,..•
'' .
G R. Mohan, Additional Solicitor General;U.t). Lalit, SanjayV; Kliarde, ·
Ms. Chandan Ra~amurthi, Hethant Sharrtia/Manish Shanna; Ms.·sushma
Suri, Marioj Swarup, S.S. Shinde, V.N. Raghup~thy; T, Mahipal, Uday B.
Dube and Kuldip Singh for the Respoi1d(:ntL '.°:. ;"·:: .
• • ~..• - ·1 ,, ~ •'

H The Judgment of the Court was deJivered.;by ·
:·· .

., - ., .·~. ! :

~ . •: ...
BHAURAO DAGDU PARALKAR v. STATE (PASAYAT, J.] 777

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.: Leave granted. A

When one talks of freedom fighters' the normal image that comes to
one's mind is a person who had suffered physically and mentally for
unshackling chains of foreign rule in our country. The normal reaction when
one sees such person is one of reverence, regard and respect. The brave
B
courageous deeds of these persons is a distinctive part of India's fight for
freedom. Many persons lost their lives, many were injured and large number
of such persons had languished in jails for various periods. The common
thread which must have passed through the minds of these people is their
sole objective to see that their motherland has a government of its own, free
from foreign rule. But these images get shattered when one hears that with c
a view to gain financially, vague documents have been produced, false
claims of participation in the freedom movement have been made. It is a
sad reflection on the moral values of the citizens of our country that a large
number of cases have surfaced where it has been established that people who
were not even born when the freedom fight was on or the country got D
independence or were toddlers when the country got independence have
applied for and managed to get "Sammanpatra", pensionary and other allied
benefits. The appeals at hand deal with such allegations. This is "Asanman"
(disrespect) to the whole country and such dishonourable ventures have to
be dealt with sternness to send out a message that they are not freedom
fighters, but are traitors sullying the name of freedom fight. E

In these appeals challenge is to the judgment delivered by a Division
Bench of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad Bench by which several
writ petitions were disposed of.
F
Writ petitions came to be filed before the High Court challenging the
grant ofbenefits to such phantoms masquerading to be freedom fighters. The
basic allegation .in the writ petitions was that in the Beed District of
Maharashtra, there were· 1arge number of persons who had. been granted
pensionary benefits under the Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme (in short
the 'Scheme'). Such writ petitions were purported to have been filed by G
persons in public. interest. In one case the petition was filed by a freedom
fighter who claimed that he was surprised to see the number of persons
. fal~ely claiming to be freedom fighters. The prayer essentially was to hold
detai)ed enquiry and to cancel the pensionary benefits and for a direction
. to recover the amounts which had already been paid along with the prayer H
778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A for initiation of criminal proceedings against the bogus claimants. It was
pointed out that in as many as 354 bogus claims have been allowed in the
concerned district. Such persons were availing pensionary and other benefits
which are to be availed only by genuine freedom fighters. It was highlighted
in the petitions that some of the so called freedom fighters were all of tender
age and/or were not born when freedom struggle was fought. In respect of
B others it was alleged that they managed to get freedom fighters' pension by
submitting forged, false and fabricated documents. A Division Bench of the
High Court taking cognizance of the petitions and the serious allegations
made therein constituted a three-member Enquiry Committee headed by a
retired Judge of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and two other
C members who were practising advocates from the Beed District. They were
required to enquire into the claims of so called freedom fighters. The
Committee was constituted by order dated 3.12.2002. Allegatiop.s were
made that out of 3000 applications filed, 354 were ineligible and the High
Power Committee of the State had wrongly recommended payment of
pension holding them to be freedom fighters. It is stated that there are two
D Committees i.e. District Level Committee (District Gaurav Committee) and
State Level High Power Committee which are required to examine the
claims. -The High Court after perusing the 3000 applications retained the
files of these suspected 354 cases. Order passed prior to the appointment
of the Enquiry Committee revealed that the Court prima facie was of the
E view that in 26 cases the persons were less than I 0 years of age when the
freedom struggle was fought. The Enquiry Committee submitted its report.
After the enquiry report was submitted, the High Court passed orders 3t
various stages. It appears that some of the persons whose names were
included in the list of 354 suspected beneficiaries filed the writ petitions.
While the High Court directed the Collector, Beed District not to release
F pension to these freedom fighters whose cases were covered by the Enquiry
Committee until further orders. The said order of the High Court was also
made applicable to the freedom fighters whose civil writ applications were
already rejected. Aggrieved by the order, Special Leave Petition was filed
before this Court which was disposed of by the following order:
G "Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

We decline to grant permission to file the Special Leave
petitions but give liberty to the petitioners to file independent writ
petitions, challenging the order of the Enquiry Committee, if so
H desired.
BHAURAO DAGDU PARALKAR v. STATE [PASAYAT, J.] 779

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners states that A
certain observations made in the impugned order will come in their
way and/or affect the case of the petitioners on merits. We make
it clear that the observations made in the impugned order shall not
affect the merits of the case of the petitioners in the writ petitions
that may be filed." B
After hearing the cases, the High Court by the impugned judgment held that
the foundation on which the allegations were made was really factually
incorrect. The High Court took five sample cases and came to hold that the
report of the Enquiry Committee was not to be accepted and accordingly
dismissed the writ petitions. It was of the view that the documents produced
c
were sufficient to substantiate the claims. It found that the parameters fixed
by this Court for dealing with the applications for freedom fighters' pension
were fulfilled and therefore no interference was called for. It also held that
the petitions filed as 'Public Interest Litigation' were not really so. It was
observed that the enquiries conducted before grant of pension cannot be D
upset by contrary findings recorded by the Enquiry Committee and, there-
fore, the petitions challenging grant of freedom fighters' pension were
dismissed while the petitions questioning correctness of the Enquiry Com-
mittee appointed by the High Court were allowed.
E
In support of the appeals, Mr. A.V. Savant, learned senior counsel
submitted that the approach of the High Court is clearly erroneous. The fact
that it took up 5 sample cases itself shows that the High Court was not
adopting the proper course. Even if it is accepted for the sake of argument
that the persons covered by the five sample cases were genuine freedom
fighters that does not necessarily lead to an inference that all others were F
also genuine freedom fighters. After elaborate analysis of the materials the
Committee came to hold that the claims were bogus and tainted with fraud.
The High Court should not have lightly interfered with the findings. on
suppositions and presumptions.
G
Per contra, learned counsel for the beneficiaries whose eligibility was
questioned submitted that all relevant documents had been submitted, were
scrutinized and thereafter pension was granted and, therefore, the Commit-
tee appointed by the High Court was not justified in lightly brushipg aside
the intrinsic value of the documents produced to hold otherwise. H
780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A The object of the scheme was highlighted by this Court in Mukundlal
Bhandari v. Union of India and Ors., AIR (1993) SC 2127.

"The object was to honour and where it was necessary also to
mitigate the sufferings of those who had given their all for the
B country in the hour of its need. In fact, many of those who do not
have sufficient income to maintain themselves refuse to take ben-
efit of it since they consider it as an affront to the sense of patriotism
with which they plunged in the freedom struggle. The spirit of the
scheme being both to assist and honour the needy and acknowledge
the valuable sacrifices made, it would be contrary to its spirit to
c convert it into some kind of a programme of compensation. Yet that
may be the result if the benefit is directed to be given .retrospec-
tively whatever the date the application is made. The Scheme
should retain its high objective with which it was motivated ... "

D Again in Gurdial Singh v. Union ofIndia, (2001) AIR SCW 3843, this
Court observed:

"It should not be forgotten that the persons intended to be
covered by the scheme have suffered for the country about half a
century back and had not expected to be rewarded for the impris-
E onment suffered by them. Once the country has decided to honour
such freedom fighters, the bureaucrats entrusted 'with the job of
examining the cases of such freedom fighters are expected to keep
in mind the purpose and object of the scheme .... "

F We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed in Mukundlal 's
and Gurdial Singh 's cases (supra). As noted at the threshold, the genuine
freedom fighters deserve to be treated with reverence, respect and honour.
But at the same time it cannot be lost sight of that people who had no role
to play in the freedom struggle should not be permitted to benefit ·from the
liberal approach required to be adopted in the case of the freedom fighters,
G most of whom in the normal course are septuagenarians and octogenarians.
It baffles one, beyond comprehension, when claim is made by a person who
was not even born during the freedom struggle to be a freedom fighter ..
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted a list which makes an
interesting reading. Some of the beneficiaries were born in f95 l and some
H in 1955. Accepting claims of such persons to be freedom fighters would be
BHAURAO DAGDU PARALKAR v. STATE [PASAYAT,J.] 781

making a mockery of the scheme which is intended for genuine freedom A
fighter. The approach of the High Court is clearly untenable. Sampling
cannot be the method for determining the truth or otherwise of the allega-
tions or claims made. Each case was required to be individually examined.
On that score alone, the High Court's judgment is vulnerable. Allegations
made were to the effect that fraud has been practiced. B

By "fraud" is meant an intention to deceive; whether it is from any
expectation of advantage to the party himself or from the ill will towards
the other is immaterial. The expression "fraud" involves two elements,
deceit and injury to the person deceived. Injury is something other than
economic loss, that is, deprivation of property, whether movable or immov- C
able or of money and it will include and any harm whatever caused to any
person in body, mind, reputation or such others. In short, it is a non-
economic or non-pecuniary loss. A benefit or advantage to the deceiver, will
almost always call loss or detriment to the deceived. Even in those rare cases
where there is a benefit or advantage to the deceiver, but no corresponding D
loss to the deceived, the second condition is satisfied. (See Dr. Vim/a v.
Delhi Administration, [1963] Supp. 2 SCR 585) and Indian Bank v. Satyam
Febres (India) Pvt. Ltd, [1996] 5 SCC 550.

A "fraud" is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing
something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order E
to gain by another's loss. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. (See
S.P. Changalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, [1994] I SCC I).

"Fraud" as is well known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice
never dwell together. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which F
includes the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand
as a response to the conduct of the former either by words or letter. It is
also well settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. Indeed,
innocent misrepresentation may also give reason to claim relief against
fraud. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading
a man into damage by willfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act G
on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations, which
he knows to be false, and injury enures therefrom although the motive from
which the representations proceeded may not have been bad, An act of fraud
on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view
to deprive the rights of the others in relation to a property would render the H
782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A transaction void ab initio. Fraud and deception are ~ynonymous. Although
in a given case a deception may not amount to fraud, fraud is anathema to
all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetu-
ated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine including res
judicata. (See Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi and Ors., [2003] 8 SCC
B 319.

"Fraud" and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any
civilized system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human
conduct. Michael Levi likens a fraudster to Milton's sorcerer, Comus, who
exulted in his ability to, 'wing me into the easy hearted man and trap him
c into snares'. It has been defmed as an act of trickery or deceit, In Webster's
Third New International Dictionary "fraud" in equity has been defined as
an act or omission to act or concealment by which one person obtains an
advantage against conscience over another or which equity or public policy
forbids as being prejudicial to another. In Black's Legal Dictionary, "fraud"
D is defined as an intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing
another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to
him or surrender a legal right; a false representation of a matter of fact
whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by
concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and
is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury.
E In Concise Oxford Dictionary, it has been defined as criminal deception, use
of false representation to gain unjust advantage; dishonest artifice or trick.
According to Halsbury's Laws of England, a representation is deemed to
have been false, and therefore a misrepresentation, if it was at the material
date false in substance and in fact. Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act,
F 1872 defines "fraud" as act committed by a party to a contract with intent
to deceive another. From dictionary meaning or even otherwise fraud arises
out of deliberate active role of representator about a fact, which he knows
to be untrue yet he succeeds in misleading the representee by making him
believe it to be true. The representation to become fraudulent must be of
G fact with knowledge that it was false. In a leading English case i.e. Derry
and Ors. v. Peek, [1886-90] All ER I what constitutes "fraud" was described
thus: (All ER p. 22 B-C) "fraud" is prGved when it is shown that a false
representation has been made (i) knowingly, or (ii) without belief in its truth,
or(iii) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false". But "fraud" in public
law is not the same as "fraud" in priv~te law. Nor can the ingredients, which
H establish "fraud" in commercial transaction, be of assistance in determining
•

BHAURAO DAGDU PARALKAR v. STATE [PASAYAT, J.] 783

fraud in Administrative Law. It has been aptly observed by Lord Bridge in A
Khawaja v. Secretary a/State/or Home Deptt., (1983) 1 All ER 765, that
it is dangerous to introduce maxims of common law as to effect of fraud
while determining fraud in relation of statutory law. "Fraud" in relation to
statute must be a colourable transaction to evade the provisions of a statute.
"If a statute has been passed for some one particular purpose, a court oflaw B
will not countenance any attempt which may be made to extend the opera-
tion of the Act to something else which is quite foreign to its object and
beyond its scope. Present day concept of fraud on statute has veered round
abuse of power or ma/a fide exercise of power. It may arise due to over-
stepping the limits of power or defeating the provision of statute by adopting
subterfuge or the power may be exercised for extraneous or irrelevant C
considerations. The colour of fraud in public law or administration law, as
it is developing, is assuming different shades. It arises from a deception
committed by disclosure of incorrect facts knowingly and deliberately to
invoke exercise of power and procure an order from an authority or tribunal.
It must result in exercise of jurisdiction which otherwise would not have D
been exercised. The misrepresentation must be in relation to the conditions
provided in a section on existence or non-existence of which the po,ver can
be exercised. But non-disclosure of a fact not required by a statute to be
disclosed may not amount to fraud. Even in commercial transactions non-
disclosure of every fact does not vitiate the agreement. "In a contract every
person must look for himself and ensures that he acquires the information E
necessary to avoid bad bargain. In public law the duty is not to de.ceive. (See
Shrisht Dhawan (Smt.) v. Mis. Shaw Brothers, [1992] 1 SCC 534).

In that case it was observed as follows:
F
"Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any
civilized system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human
conduct. Michael levi likens a fraudster to Milton's sorcerer, Comus, who
exulted in his ability to, 'wing me into the easy-hearted man and trap him
into snares'. It has been defined as an act of trickery or deceit. In Webster's
Third New International Dictionary fraud in equity has been defined as an G
act or omission to act or concealment by which one person obtains an
advantage against conscience over another or which equity or public policy
forbids as being prejudicial to another. In Black's Legal Dictionary, fraud
is defined as an intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing
another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to H
•

784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A him or surrender a legal right; a false representation of a matter of fact
whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by
concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and
is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury.
In Concise Oxford Dictionary, it has been defined as criminal deception, use
B of false representation to gain unjust advantage; dishonest artifice or trick.
According to Halsbury's Laws of England, a representation is deemed to
have been false, and therefore a misrepresentation, if it was at the material
date false in substance and in fact. Section 17 of the Contract Act defines
fraud as act committed by a party to a contract with intent to deceive another.
From dictionary meaning or even otherwise fraud arises out of deliberate
C active role of representator about a fact which he knows to be untrue yet
he succeeds in misleading the representee by making him believe it to be
true. The representation to become fraudulent must be of the fact with
knowledge that it was false. In a leading English case Derry v. Peek, (1886-
90) ALL ER Rep 1: (1889) 14 AC 337 (HL)] what constitutes fraud was
D described thus: (All Er p. 22 B-C)

'Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been
made (i) knowingly, or (ii) without belief in its truth, or (iii) recklessly,
careless whether it be true or false'."

E This aspect of the matter has been considered recently by this Court
in Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal, [2002] l SCC 100; Ram Preeti Yadav v. U.P.
Board of High School and Intermediate Education; [2003] 8 SCC 311, Ram
Chandra Singh's case (supra) and Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of T.N. and
Another, [2004] 3 SCC 1.
F
Suppression of a material document would also amount to a fraud on
the court. (see Gowrishankar v. Joshi Amba Shankar Family Trust, [1996]
3 SCC 310) and S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu 's case (supra) ..

"Fraud" is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the other
G person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to
the conduct of the former either by words or letter. Although negligence is
not fraud but it can be evidence on fraud; as observed in Ram Preeti Yadav 's
case (supra).

H In Lazarus Estate Ltd. v. Beasley, (1956) l QB 702, Lord Denning
BHAURAO DAGDU PARALKAR v. STATE [PASAYAT, J.] 785

observed at pages 712 & 713, "No judgment of a Court, no order of a A
Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud
unravels everything." In the same judgment Lord Parker LJ observed that
fraud vitiates all transac.tions known ro the law of however high a degree
of solemnity. (page 722)
B
These aspects were recently highlighted in the State ofAndhra Pradesh
and Anr. v. T. Suryachandr Rao, (2005) 5 SCALE 621.

To give finality to the controversy, we appoint Mr. Justice A.B. Palkar,
a retired Judge of the Bombay High Court to examine the 354 cases. The
relevant files shall be handed over to the Commission immediately. The c
Commission is requested to complete the verification within four months
and submit its report to the State Government for necessary action. The
claimants whose cases are to be examined shall be given opportunity to have
their say before the Commission. The records of the Zilla Gaurav Samittee,
High Power Committee and the Committee appointed by the High Court D
shall be examined by the Commission before issuing notice to he individual
applicants to decide the acceptability or otherwise of the claims for freedom
fighters' pension. On getting report of the Commission, the State Govern-
ment shall take necessary action. We make it clear that we have not ex-
pressed any opinion on the acceptability or otherwise of the claims as the
Commission appointed by this Court shall examine those aspects. E

The Commission appointed by this Court shall be paid the same
emoluments as are admissible to a sitting Judge of the High Court for the
duration of its work, which we expect will be finished within a period of
4 months. The emoluments admissible to the Commission shall be paid by F
the State Government, apart from other expenses that may be incurred for.
functioning of the Commission.

The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs.

D.G. Appeals allowed. G