C/M Social Welfare Prathmik Vidyalaya and Another v. State of U.P. and Others

Reserved on 11.02.2025 Delivered on 15.05.2025 Court No. - 32 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 59729 of 2006 Petitioner :- C/M Social Welfare Prathmik Vidyalaya And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Bahadur,Dhirendra Kumar Srivastav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

¶1Heard Sri Rakesh Bahadur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jitendra Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶2The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has assailed the order dated 10.10.2006 passed by the respondent no.1-Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department U.P., Lucknow rejecting the claim of the petitioner for releasing the recurring grant, and has further prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the recurring grant already sanctioned in favour of the petitioner.

¶3The case of the petitioner is that there is a Society in the name of 'Samaj Kalyan Society Kalpi, Jalaun' (hereinafter referred to as the 'Society'), registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and has been renewed from time to time. The Society established a School in the name of 'Social Welfare Prathmik Vidhyalaya Kalpi, Jalaun at Orai (hereinafter referred to as the 'Vidhyalaya'). The Vidhyalaya was granted 'temporary recognition' in the year 1980 by the Education Authority.

¶4According to the petitioner, the permanent recognition was accorded to the Vidhyalaya by the Education Authorities by order dated 23.04.1986. It is stated that between the year 1980-83, the Vidhyalaya was getting 'recurring grant' from the State Government. It has been further mentioned that the Vidhyalaya was brought under the 'Recurring Grant List by the order of the Education Authority dated 31.03.1994.

¶5According to the petitioner, the name of the petitioner's Vidhyalaya appeared at serial No.16 in the list of the School enclosed with the Government Order dated 31.03.1994. It is alleged that one local M.L.A. namely, Sreeram Pal who was the then Social Welfare Minister was interested in certain illegal gratification, which the Manager of the Vidhyalaya refused. According to the petitioner that because of this reason, the grant was not released and a report was called for, and the Deputy Director, Social Welfare, Jhansi Division, Jhansi vide letter dated 17.03.1998 to the Director, Social Welfare, U.P. Lucknow gave a detailed report stating that the Vidhyalaya is recognised one and there was no dispute between the Committee of Management. Accordingly, he recommended by the report dated 17.03.1998 to the Director, Social Welfare, respondent no.2 to release the grant to the Vidhyalaya.

¶6Despite recommendation of Deputy Director of Social Welfare, when the grant was not released, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ-C No.8744 of 1999 which was disposed of by this Court by judgement and order dated

24.10.2005 directing the respondents to pass an appropriate order according to law considering the report dated 17.03.1998 after recording the reasons preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order.

¶7Pursuant to the judgement and order dated 24.10.2005 passed by this Court, respondent no.1 Principal Secretary passed an order rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was not granted 'permanent recognition' and the petitioner has interpolated the order of 'permanent recognition' and the petitioner did not fulfil the condition of the Government Order dated 31.03.1994 that the Vidhyalaya was having temporary/permanent recognition.

¶8The impugned order further considered the report dated

17.03.1998 and did not rely upon the same on the ground that the report has been submitted by taking shield of missing original records whereas the fraud had been committed by the Vidhyalaya, therefore, by the said report, an attempt had been made to benefit the Vidhyalaya.

¶9A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents contending inter alia that in the original letter dated 23.04.1986 issued by the office of District Basic Education Officer, Jalaun at Orai, there is no word of 'permanent recognition' written on the said letter nor any 'permanent recognition' had been granted in favour of the petitioner Vidhyalaya, and only 'temporary recognition' had been granted for the period from

01.07.1985 to 30.06.1986. It is further stated that District Basic Education Officer had issued letter dated 04.11.2006 to the District Social Welfare Officer, Jalaun at Orai intimating him that only 'temporary recognition' had been granted to the petitioner-Vidhyalaya for the period from 01.07.1985 to

30.06.1986. It is further stated that by the letter dated

04.09.1998 issued by the Basic Education Officer Jalaun at Orai, initial recognition to the Vidhyalaya had been stated to be illegal.

¶10Further case in the counter affidavit is that the Vidhyalaya was provided 'Non Recurring Grant' from the year 1980 to 1983, but this fact did not come in the knowledge of the authorities. The respondents further pleaded that the petitioner had made forgery by making false endorsement/impression in the word 'Temporary' by replacing the word 'Permanent' to get the benefit of 'permanent recognition'. This fact was detected when a complaint was made and an enquiry was conducted, in which it was found that the word 'Temporary' was interpolated by the word 'Permanent' at the level of the Committee of Management to get the status of the Vidhyalaya changed and to derive the benefit as a 'permanent recognised Vidhyalaya' in place of 'temporary' status of recognition. It is further stated that petitioner no.2 who was the Manager of the Vidhyalaya was solely responsible for this act.

¶11It is further stated that the Deputy Director of Social Welfare, Jhansi Region, Jhansi issued a letter dated 17.03.1998 to the petitioner Vidyalaya and a letter dated 14.02.2006 had also been issued by the Social Welfare Officer Jhansi at Orai supporting the petitioner Vidhyalaya. Accordingly, the State Government after considering the matter had taken action against the erring Officials responsible for the same.

¶12The respondents further stated that since the petitioner Vidhyalaya failed to fulfil the conditions and norms laid in the Government Order dated 31.03.1994, therefore, the petitioner Vidhyalaya could not be given the status of recognition either 'temporary' or 'permanent'.

¶13Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that this Court had issued a direction in its judgement dated 24.10.2005 to the authorities to decide the claim of the petitioner considering the report dated

17.03.1998, but the said report has not been correctly appreciated by the respondent no.1 while rejecting the claim of the petitioner. It is submitted that the finding returned in the impugned order is perverse and against the record, therefore, in such view of the fact, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.

¶14Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel would contend that the petitioner Vidhyalaya was never granted 'permanent recognition' and the petitioner by making fraudulent interpolation in the letter dated 23.04.1986 had replaced the word 'Temporary' by the word 'Permanent'. He contends that it is not the heading of the letter that would determine the nature of the letter, rather the whole content has to be seen in concluding whether letter grants 'permanent recognition' or 'temporary recognition'. It is contended that it is specifically written in the letter dated 23.04.1986 that the recognition is only for 01.07.1985 to 30.06.1986..

¶15Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has further invited the attention of the Court to the photocopy of the original letter dated 23.04.1986 in which no endorsement about 'permanent recognition' is made nor there is any noting at the bottom of the letter, therefore, he contends that the letter dated

23.04.1986 enclosed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition is a forged and manipulated document, and since the petitioner's Vidhyalaya does not fulfil the mandatory condition of possessing 'temporary' or 'permanent' recognition, therefore, the petitioner's Vidhyalaya could not be granted 'Recurring Grant'.

¶16He further submits that the respondent no.1 while deciding the claim of the petitioner has considered the report /letter dated 17.03.1998 of the Deputy Director of Education, Social Welfare and did not rely upon the same on the ground that the report dated 17.03.1998 had been submitted by ignoring the original records and the fraud committed by the petitioner's Vidhyalaya, and the report had been submitted with an intention to give benefit to the Vidhyalaya. Consequently, the authority while passing the impugned order rightly did not place reliance upon the said report.

¶17I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶18The detailed facts have already been delineated above, therefore, they are not being reiterated to uncessarily burden the judgement.

¶19The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ-C No.8744 of 1999 which was disposed off by this Court by order dated 24.10.2005 directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law considering the report dated 17.03.1998. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced herein below:- "In view of the aforesaid fact, I am of the opinion that the present writ petition can be disposed of finally with the direction to the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to pass appropriate detailed order according to law considering the report dated 17.03.1998 after recording the reasons preferablly within a period of two months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs."

¶20The reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the letter dated 23.04.1986, which according to the petitioner is the letter granting 'permanent recognition' to the petitioner's Vidhyalaya. The letter dated 23.04.1986 enclosed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition is reproduced herein-below: " का቟ኋाल቟ኋ जिला बेजि क शि ्ቌा अधिकारी

, ालौन स्थान उरई।

प्ቔांक दिनांक-23-4-86्ቚ बन्क 1- ो ल वेलफे቟ኋर ्ቚा० दिव० कालपी -- ---स्थाई मान्቟ኋता एवं म्ब्ቍता 2-धि+्ቔगु्቎ ्ቚाईमरी दिव० कालपी --- अस्थाई मान्቟ኋता 3- ी०पी०वी० ्ቚा० दिव० उरई - अस्थाई मान्቟ኋता दिवष቟ኋ- ्ቚाईमरी दिव्ቕाल቟ኋ की मान्቟ኋता के म्बन् में। महो቟ኋ, उप቟ኋु्ሹ दिवष቟ኋ के ंबं में दिनवेन है दिक जिला मान्቟ኋता दिमधित ने अपनी बैठक दिनांक 19.4.86 में आपके दिव्ቕाल቟ኋ को ्ቚाईमरी स्तर की मान्቟ኋता शि ्ቌा ्ቔ 85-86 हेतु ( 1-7-85 े 30-6-86 तक) ्ቚान कर दि቟ኋा है। उ्ሹ के फलस्वरूप दिनम्न ्ቚधितबन्ों के ाथ मान्቟ኋता दिनगत की ा रही है

¶1दिव्ቕाल቟ኋ में दिक ी भी दिन቟ኋु्ሹ अध्቟ኋापकों एवं कम+ारिर቟ኋों का अनुमोन दिवधिवतता े इ का቟ኋाल቟ኋ े ्ቚा्቎ करना आवश्቟ኋक होगा।

¶2कोई भी क्ቌा቟ኋे स्वतं्ቔ रूप े आप न बन् कर कते है और न खोल कते है इ हेतु इ का቟ኋाल቟ኋ की पूव अनुमधित आवश्቟ኋक होगी।

¶3मानक े अधिक छा्ቔ ंख्቟ኋा रखने हेतु इ का቟ኋाल቟ኋ े पूव स्वीकृधित आवश्቟ኋक होगी।

¶4दिवभागी቟ኋ दिन቟ኋमों एवं दिनE ों को कडाई े पालन करना होगा। ቟ኋदि दिनरी्ቌण के

म቟ኋ अथवा दिक ी म቟ኋ ቟ኋह ानकारी होती है दिक आप दिवभागी቟ኋ दिन቟ኋमों एवं दिनE ों का पालन नहीं कर रहे है तो आपकी मान्቟ኋता दिक ी भी म቟ኋ मा्቎ दिक቟ኋा ाने का अधिकारी ुरधि्ቌत है।

¶5दिव्ቕाल቟ኋ में दिवभाग ्ቛारा मान्቟ኋ पाठ቟ኋ्ቅमों की पुस्तकें ही पढाई ावे अमान्቟ኋ पुस्तकें न पढाई ावे।

¶6቟ኋदि आप ्ቛारा मान्቟ኋता ्ቚा्቎ करने हेतु मान्቟ኋता दिन቟ኋमों के तL के आलोक में दिक ी तथ्቟ኋों को शिछपाकर कोई आख्቟ኋा अथवा ्ቚस्तुतीकरण की गई होगी और उ के दिक ी भी म቟ኋ ानकारी होने पर ቟ኋह मान्቟ኋता दिनरस्त करने का अधिकार इ का቟ኋाल቟ኋ को होगा। उ्ሹ ्ቚधितबन् ्ቅमांक पर लागू नहीं है। कृप቟ኋा इ प्ቔ की ्ቚादि्቎ स्वीकार करें।"

¶21At this stage, it would be apt to reproduce the letter dated

23.04.1986 enclosed as Annexure-CA1 to the counter affidavit. " का቟ኋाल቟ኋ जिला बेजि क शि ्ቌा अधिकारी

, ालौन स्थान उरई।

प्ቔांक दिनांक-23-4-86्ቚ बन्क 1- ो ल वेलफे቟ኋर ्ቚा० दिव० कालपी 2-धि+्ቔगु्቎ ्ቚाईमरी दिव० कालपी

3- ी०पी०वी० ्ቚा० दिव० उरई

दिवष቟ኋ- ्ቚाईमरी दिव्ቕाल቟ኋ की मान्቟ኋता के म्बन् में। महो቟ኋ, उप቟ኋु्ሹ दिवष቟ኋ के ंबं में दिनवेन है दिक जिला मान्቟ኋता दिमधित ने अपनी बैठक दिनांक 19.4.86 में आपके दिव्ቕाल቟ኋ को ्ቚाईमरी स्तर की मान्቟ኋता शि ्ቌा ्ቔ 85-86 हेतु ( 1-7-85 े 30-6-86 तक) ्ቚान कर दि቟ኋा है। उ्ሹ के फलस्वरूप दिनम्न ्ቚधितबन्ों के ाथ मान्቟ኋता दिनगत की ा रही है

¶1दिव्ቕाल቟ኋ में दिक ी भी दिन቟ኋु्ሹ अध्቟ኋापकों एवं कम+ारिर቟ኋों का अनुमोन दिवधिवतता े इ का቟ኋाल቟ኋ े ्ቚा्቎ करना आवश्቟ኋक होगा।

¶2कोई भी क्ቌा቟ኋे स्वतं्ቔ रूप े आप न बन् कर कते है और न खोल

कते है इ हेतु इ का቟ኋाल቟ኋ की पूव अनुमधित आवश्቟ኋक होगी।

¶3मानक े अधिक छा्ቔ ंख्቟ኋा रखने हेतु इ का቟ኋाल቟ኋ े पूव स्वीकृधित आवश्቟ኋक होगी।

¶4दिवभागी቟ኋ दिन቟ኋमों एवं दिनE ों को कडाई े पालन करना होगा। ቟ኋदि दिनरी्ቌण के म቟ኋ अथवा दिक ी म቟ኋ ቟ኋह ानकारी होती है दिक आप दिवभागी቟ኋ दिन቟ኋमों एवं दिनE ों का पालन नहीं कर रहे है तो आपकी मान्቟ኋता दिक ी भी म቟ኋ

मा्቎ दिक቟ኋा ाने का अधिकारी ुरधि्ቌत है।

¶5दिव्ቕाल቟ኋ में दिवभाग ्ቛारा मान्቟ኋ पाठ቟ኋ्ቅमों की पुस्तकें ही पढाई ावे अमान्቟ኋ पुस्तकें न पढाई ावे।

¶6቟ኋदि आप ्ቛारा मान्቟ኋता ्ቚा्቎ करने हेतु मान्቟ኋता दिन቟ኋमों के तL के आलोक में दिक ी तथ्቟ኋों को शिछपाकर कोई आख्቟ኋा अथवा ्ቚस्तुतीकरण की गई होगी और उ के दिक ी भी म቟ኋ ानकारी होने पर ቟ኋह मान्቟ኋता दिनरस्त करने का अधिकार इ का቟ኋाल቟ኋ को होगा। कृप቟ኋा इ प्ቔ की ्ቚादि्቎ स्वीकार करें।"

¶22A comparison between the two letters i.e. letter dated

23.04.1986 enclosed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition, extracted above, and letter dated 23.04.1986 enclosed as Annexure-CA1 extracted above, it is evident that though in the letter dated 23.04.1986 against the name of the Vidhyalaya at Serial No.1 on the top of the letter dated 23.04.1986 enclosed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition, the word '

स्था┤㿜मान्यताएवं सम्ब्ቍता' and after condition no.6 in the said letter a noting is made '

उक्तप्रतितबन्鎺錦क्रमांकपरलाग即寰नहींहै⹡䁜कृपयाइसपत्र

कीप्राति"तस्वीकारकरें⹡䁜', whereas neither the aforesid word '

स्था┤㿜मान्यताएवंसम्ब्ቍता'' nor noting extracted above is present on the photocopy, which is annexed as annexure CA-1, which according to the respondents is original of letter dated

23.04.1986.

¶23It is pertinent to note that in the Annexure-4 to the writ petition, it is written that the District Recognition Committee in its meeting dated 19.04.1986 had decided to grant recognition at primary level for the Session 1985-86 (01.07.1985 to

30.06.1986). The same content is also written in the letter dated

23.04.1986 as Annexure-CA1 with the counter affidavit.

¶24It is settled in law that to appreciate the nature of a document, the entire contents of the letter is to be appreciated and not one line which even does not form part of the letter. In the letter dated 23.04.1986 enclosed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition, it is stated that the Vidhyalaya is granted 'temporary recognition' for the Session 1985-86 ( 01.07.1985 to

30.06.1986). None of the conditions stipulated in the letter dated 23.04.1986, enclosed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition, reveals that the recognition granted to the petitioner' Vidhyalaya is a 'permanent recognition' and merely because on the top of the letter agaisnt the name of the petitioner' Vidhyalaya '

स्था┤㿜मान्यताएवंसम्ब्ቍता' ' is written that does not mean that the said letter grants the 'permanent recognition' to the petitioner's Vidhyalaya.

¶25Further, from the comparision of two letters dated

23.04.1986 enclosed along with the writ petition as Annexure-4 and enclosed as Annexure-CA1 with the counter affidavit respectively, it is evident that certain additions had been made in the letter dated 23.04.1986 enclosed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition, whereas these additions do not form part of the letter dated 23.04.1986 enclosed as Annexure-CA1 to the counter affidavit.

¶26Since, there is a serious dispute about the genuinity of the letter dtaed 23.04.1986 enclosed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition, and the issue involved in the present case is a question of fact which cannot be determined by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the remedy of the petitioner is to approach the Civil Court by filing a suit seeking decree of declaration in respect to the letter dated

23.04.1986 enclosed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition that it is a genuine and original letter dated 23.04.1986 issued by the office of District Basic Education Officer, Jalaun at Orai.

¶27Since, the petitioner has approached this Court, therfore, the burden is upon the petitioner to produce relevant record to establish that the petitioner's Vidhyalaya was granted 'permanent recognition'. There is no order on record issued by the competent authority revealing that the petitioner's Vidhyalaya has been granted 'permanent recognition'. Even the letter dated 23.04.1986 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner states that the District Recognition Committee in its meeting dated

19.04.1986 had granted recognition to the Vidhyalaya for the Session 1985-86 for the period 01.07.1985 to 30.06.1986. The said recitation in the letter dated 23.04.1986 uneqvivocally establishes that this letter cannot be termed to be letter of 'permanent recognition' and the recognitation was only for one year.

¶28The order dated 31.03.1994 providing for recurring grant-in-aid stipulates a condition that to get the Recurring Grant, the Vidhyalaya should possess 'temporary' or 'permanent' recognition from the office of District Basis Education Officer/Zila Parishad.

¶29Since, nothing has been brought on record by the petitioner to indicate that the petitioner's Vidhyalaya had been granted recognition or the recognition was continuing on the date of issuing the order dated 31.03.1994, therefore, it is evident from the record that the petitioner's Vidhyalaya did not fulfil the condition of the Government Order dated 31.03.1994 for getting the benefit of Recurring Grant, and thus, it is evident from the record that the petitioner's Vidhyalaya has wrongly been inducted in the list enclosed with the Government Order dated 31.03.1994 for Recurring Grant.

¶30The authority while rejecting the report/letter dated

17.03.1998 has given elaborate reason in paragraph nos.9 & 10 of the order dated 10.10.2008, which is reproduced herein-below:- " 9-उ्ሹ तथ्቟ኋों े ቟ኋह स्प्ቖ है दिक ቟ኋा+ी दिव्ቕाल቟ኋ के प्ቌ में उप दिने क

मा कल्቟ኋाण झॉ ी ्ቛारा ्ቚस्तुत रिरपो्቏ दिनांक 17-3-98 जिला बेजि क शि ्ቌा अधिकारी ्ቛारा ्ቚधितवेदित ाल ाी दिवष቟ኋक अशिभलेखों एवं प्ቔों की अनेखी करते हुए मूल अशिभलेखों को गा቟ኋब कर गा቟ኋब अशिभलेखों की आड लेते हुए ቟ኋा+ी ंस्था ्ቛारा की ग቟ኋी ाल ाी तथा आवतक अनुान हेतु 10 वष की मान्቟ኋता अवधि ंबंी अदिनवा቟ኋ त को दिनष््ቚभावी करने तथा ቟ኋा+ी

ंस्था को लाभ पहुं+ा቟ኋे ाने का कुቜኌU त ्ቚ቟ኋा है। अतः म्቟ኋक दिव+ारोपरान्त ा न ्ቛारा दिनण቟ኋ लिल቟ኋा ग቟ኋा है दिक ቟ኋा+ी दिव्ቕाल቟ኋ को मा कल्቟ኋाण दिवभाग ्ቛारा अनुादिनत ू+ी े दिनरस्त करते हुए ቟ኋा+ी ंस्था का नाम ू+ी े ह्቏ा दि቟ኋा ा቟ኋ। मा कल्቟ኋाण दिवभाग को ोखा ेकर ाल ाी के आार पर गलत अशिभलेख ्ቚस्तुत कर अनुान्ቚ ा्቎ दिक቟ኋा ाने हेतु की ग቟ኋी ोखाडी एवं ाल ाी ंबंी ुष्कृU቟ኋ हेतु

ंस्था के तUकालीन ्ቚबन्क ्ቦी दिव቟ኋ गोपाल ्ቦीवास्तव के दिवरू्ቍ जिला

मा कल्቟ኋाण अधिकारी उरई ालौन ्ቛारा ्ቚथम ू+ना रिरपो्቏  कराकर ण्डाUमक का቟ኋवाही करा቟ኋी ा቟ኋ। ंस्था को लाभ पहुँ+ा቟ኋे ाने के लिल቟ኋे अदिन቟ኋदिमतता में लिल्቎ ोषी अधिकारिर቟ኋों/कम+ारिर቟ኋों ቟ኋथा- ्ቦी बलेव दि्ቔपाठी, तUकालीन उप दिने क मा कल्቟ኋाण दिवभाग झॉ ी आदि के दिवरू्ቍ ण्डाUमक का቟ኋवाही दिने क, मा कल्቟ኋाण ्ቛारा ुदिनधि[त करा቟ኋी ा቟ኋ। 10-मा० उ्ሴ न्቟ኋा቟ኋाल቟ኋ ्ቛारा ቟ኋाधि+का ंख्቟ኋा- 8744/99 में पारिरत आे दिनांक 24.10.2005 के अनुपालन में ्ቚ्቞ गत ्ቚकरण उ्ሹानु ार दिनस्तारिरत दिक቟ኋा ाता है।"

¶31Perusal of the report/letter dated 17.03.1998 reveals that it has not considered the original document dated 23.04.1986 nor it has considered the original record, and by stating that these documents have been misplaced from the record and there is a letter of District Basic Education Officer dated

13.12.1995 stating that the petitioner's Vidhyalaya has been granted 'permanent recognition' has submitted the report. In the opinion of the Court, the said report has rightly been rejected by the authority below for the reasons recorded in paragraph nos.9 & 10 of the order extracted above. The Autority Below has categorically recorded a finding in paragraph nos.9 & 10 of the report dated 17.03.1998 that the certificate of 'permanent recognition' was issued without considering the original record. The authority also appreciated that the petitioner-Vidhyalaya did not fulfil the condition of the Government Order dated

31.03.1994, yet it gave a report in favour of the petitioner with an intention to give the benefit to the petitioner Vidhyalay.

¶32The responent no.1 has categorically recorded in paragraph no.9 of the order that the petitioner has committed fraud by manipulating the record and the aforesaid finding being a finding of fact is not liable to be interfered with, more so when this Court has already reproduced the letter dated

23.04.1986 (Annexure-4 to the petition) and the letter dated

23.04.1986 (Annexure-CA1 to the counter affidavit) which reveals that they are not the same. In such view of the fact, a case of fraud seems to have been made out against the petitioner, and the question as to whether the letter dated

23.04.1986 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) is a fraudulent document and some interpolation had been made in the said document by the petitioner is a question of fact which cannot be determined by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶33Therefore, for the reasons given above, the writ petition lacks merit, and is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. Order Date :-15.05.2025 NS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad