'Baseless Claims Cannot Discredit Documents By Competent Authorities': J&K&L High Court Reiterates Need For Specific Pleadings In Fraud Cases
Underscoring the necessity of precise pleadings while alleging fraud, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that making sweeping and baseless allegations as to the veracity of the documents issued by the competent authorities would not make such documents unreliable.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar emphasised that it is essential for a litigant to give full particulars of the alleged fraud supported by material.
These observations were made while dismissing a petition that sought to assail permissions granted by statutory authorities for establishment of a petroleum outlet, holding that vague allegations, unsupported by particulars, cannot be a ground for judicial interference.
The petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arose out of a dispute relating to the grant of permission for conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural use and establishment of a DC point petrol pump in District Baramulla. The petitioners had invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court after suffering concurrent adverse orders from the trial court as well as the appellate court.
The dispute originated to an advertisement issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for appointment of retail outlet dealers in Jammu and Kashmir, pursuant to which both the plaintiffs and respondent No.7 applied. The plaintiffs instituted a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction before the Sub Judge, Baramulla, contending that respondent No.7 had obtained permission for change of land use by resorting to fraudulent and false documents.
According to the plaintiffs, the permission granted was only for a DC petrol pump and not for a rural retail outlet dealership, and thereafter the land had been leased out for establishment of a petrol pump in violation of the norms. On these assertions, the plaintiffs sought cancellation of the permission granted by the Deputy Commissioner, Baramulla.
The contesting respondents resisted the suit, asserting that all procedures and guidelines had been strictly followed and that the permissions had been granted in accordance with law. The trial court, after analysing the pleadings, declined interim relief on the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to establish a strong prima facie case. The appeal against this order was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Baramulla.
When the matter reached the High Court, Justice Dhar reiterated the settled limits of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, observing that the Court does not sit as a court of appeal over orders of subordinate courts and would interfere only in cases of jurisdictional error, material irregularity, or manifest injustice.
The Court emphasised,
“mere error of law or even an error of fact cannot become a basis for exercising the power of superintendence unless it has resulted in failure of justice.”
Dealing with the core contention of fraud, the Court found that although the petitioners alleged that the permission for change of land use was based on fraudulent and fake documents, neither the nature of the fraud nor the alleged fake documents were explained either in the plaint or in the petition before the High Court.
In a categorical observation, the Court held,
“Making sweeping and baseless allegations as to the veracity of the documents issued by the competent authorities would not make such documents unreliable. It is for the petitioners, who have pleaded fraud, to give particulars of the alleged fraud and support these allegations with material.”
The Court further observed that in the absence of material particulars and supporting evidence, such allegations could not be relied upon. Justice Dhar also noted that the assertions regarding violation of norms and guidelines were omnibus in nature and lacking in material particulars, justifying the refusal of the courts below to act upon them.
Addressing the argument that the permission granted was only for a DC point and not for a retail outlet petrol pump, the Court examined the permission letter issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Baramulla, and found that it clearly granted permission for establishment of a DC point petrol pump at the specified location.
The Court observed that the No Objection Certificates issued by other departments were also in respect of the DC point petrol pump, which “would, prima facie, include operation of a retail petroleum outlet.”
The Court also took note of a subsequent communication issued by the District Magistrate, Baramulla, clarifying that the NOC had been issued for establishment of a retail outlet on the basis of reports and NOCs from different departments, thereby removing any ambiguity regarding the nature of permission. The Court thus held that the contention of the petitioners in this regard was without substance.
In conclusion, the Court found no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the trial court and the appellate court, holding that the petition lacked merit. Accordingly, the petition along with connected applications was dismissed.
Case Title: Kafil Ahmad Mangral Vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL)