A benefit secured by fraud is revocable and does not generate any enforceable shares, the Orissa High Court has ruled, upholding the public sector winding up of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) for selling a petrol pump obtained through a fake graduation certificate.
Justice Sanjeeb K Panigrahi dismissed a writ petition filed by Prasanta Behera, who ran a BPCL retail outlet in Bhubaneswar for nearly a decade before canceling his dealership in May 2015 after Utkal University asserted that it had no record of the qualifications he claimed during the application process.
“When a privileged position is obtained on the basis of a false certificate or fraudulent representation, the basis of that position collapses,” the court said. She added that not everyone can benefit from his fraud.
Behera applied for the agency in 2004 under a land-linked scheme, offering land belonging to his mother on Lewis Road in Bhubaneswar. The agency was granted, and his mother entered into a lease of the land in favor of BPCL.
After filing a complaint in 2012, BPCL wrote to Utkal University to verify the provisional graduation certificate provided by Buhaira. The university stated that there is no such name in its records. BPCL issued a show-cause notice and terminated the agency.
The court rejected Behera’s argument that even without a graduation qualification, his degree under the applicable selection criteria would have met the minimum standards. She said that submitting a false document to obtain a benefit was “in itself a serious violation” that affected the integrity of the selection process, regardless of any calculations.
The court cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in R Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala and said that an appointment or allotment secured by fraud is void ab initio. It rejected Al-Buhaira’s claim that BPCL acted after unreasonable delay, noting that when the action is based on fraud, the issue of delay in commencing proceedings becomes largely irrelevant.
Buhaira objected to BP’s continued possession of the outlet premises, arguing that the executed ground lease and the agency were inextricably linked, and that the termination of one should dissolve the other.
The court rejected this argument, considering that the lease contract and the agency are considered two different legal instruments between different parties. She said that Al-Buhaira’s mother was the landlord, and that he could not, by his personal right, seek to terminate an existing lease to which he was not a party.
