Judgment Aftab Alam, J. 1. The petitioners in all these four applications have come to this Court seeking to challenge the cancellation of their admissions against 15 per cent all India quota in the 1991 sessions of the MBBS course in the two medical colleges of this State. 2. The petitioners in C. W. J Cs.10092, 11941 of 1992 and 41 of 1993 were admitted to Darbhanga Medical College from where their admissions have been cancelled by letter No 5376, dated 15-9-1992, issued under the hand of the Principal of the College. The letter simply states that the admissions of the candidates mentioned therein were being cancelled as advised under letter, dated 31-8-1992, from the Directorate-General of health Services (Directorate, for the sake of brevity) but as the facts unfold it comes to light that the reason for cancellation was that the admissions in question were secured on the basis of fake and forged letters from the Directorate. The aforesaid letter, dated 31 8-1992, comes under challenge in all the three applications and has been marked as Annexures 7, 6 and 5, respectively in these applications. 3. The two petitioners in C W. J. C. No 12827 of 1992 were admitted in Anugrah Narain Magadh Medical College, Gaya and they filed this writ application originally challenging a letter, dated 11-11-1992, issued any the principal of that college asking them to show cause why their admissions to the college may not be cancelled and other legal proceedings be not instituted against them as the letter on the basis of which they had secured their admissions was, on verification, found to be fake and forged. 4. During the pendency of the writ application the admissions of these two petitioners have been cancelled by memo, dated 2-12-1992, issued by the principal of the college and by an amendment petition filed in this case, this letter also is brought under challenge. 5. The facts of these cases are more or less the same and differ only in details regarding dates, etc. The petitioners in C. W. J. Cs. Nos.10092 and 11941 of 1992 state in their respective writ petitions that they took the All india Pre-Medical/pre-Dental Entrance Examination for the session 1991 against 15 per cent all India quota, the examination was held by the c. B. S. E. on 13-5-1990. The petitioners in C. W. J. Cs. Nos.10092 and 11941 of 1992 state in their respective writ petitions that they took the All india Pre-Medical/pre-Dental Entrance Examination for the session 1991 against 15 per cent all India quota, the examination was held by the c. B. S. E. on 13-5-1990. The petitioners in these two applications have enclosed their admit cards from which it appears that the petitioner in c. W. J. C. No.10092 had 0805718 as her roll number and the roll number of petitioner in C. W. J. C. No.11941 of 1992 was 0803642. It is common knowledge that the select list prepared on the basis of the competitive test is widely published, her both the writ applications are silent on this point and there is no averment (sic) that the names/roll numbers of the petitioners figured in the select list. The petitioners in these two applications claim to have received a letter from the Directors advising them to take their admission at Oarbhanga Medical College by 7th February, 1992. A copy of this letter has not been enclosed with the writ petition but apparently it was a letter dated 11-11-1991, purported to have been signed by one, Dr. Girish Tayal, Assistant Director-General (M. E) and issued from the directorate giving the list of five candidates for their admission at darbhanga Medical College The petitioners further claim that they appeared with the aforesaid letter before the principal, Darbhanga Medical college who got the letter produced by the petitioners cross-checked with the corresponding copy received by him directly and finding it to be in order got the petitioners admitted to the college on 15-1-1992. The petitioners were perusing their studies there when the impugned notice, dated 15-9-1992, was issued whereby and where under admissions of ten students, including the petitioners, were cancelled They filed a representation before the principal on 19-9-1992 but failing to get any response, approached this court with these two applications. 6. The material facts in C W. J C. No.41 of 1993 are identical. The only difference is that the two petitioners in this application have not enclosed their admit cards for the admission test and given the nature of this case one is not quite certain if they had even appeared in the admission test. 6. The material facts in C W. J C. No.41 of 1993 are identical. The only difference is that the two petitioners in this application have not enclosed their admit cards for the admission test and given the nature of this case one is not quite certain if they had even appeared in the admission test. The other minor point of difference is that their admission to darbhanga Medical College appears to have been advised under letter, dated 27-1-1992, which also was later found to be fake and forged. 7. The two petitioners in C W J. C. No.12827 of 1992 got admitted to Anugrah Narain Magadh Medical College, Gaya under similar circumstances. It appears that the roll number of petitioner No.2 was 1900442, the roll number of petitioner No.1 was 1102466 though his admit card is not on the record. They claim to have received their admission advice under letters, dated 18-12-1990, purported to have been signed by Professor m. P. Srivastava, Assistant Director-General (M E.) and shown to have been issued from the Directorate. On verification this leter was found to be forged and they were issued a show-cause notice by the principal of the college on 11-11-1992. Petitioner No.1 gave his reply on 24-11-1992. The principal, however, cancelled their admission by his letter, dated 1-12-1992 and also lodged a first information report against them giving rise to Gaya Sadar P S. Case No.79 of 1992 under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Penal Code. 8. Counter-affidavit have been filed by the principal of Darbhanga medical College as also by Mr. Girish Tayal under whose purported signatures the letters, dated 11-11-1991 and 27-1-1992 were shown to have been issued from the Directorate. From these affidavits the following facts come to light. The letters, dated 11-11-1991 and 27-1-1992, on the basis of which admissions were secured at Darbhanga Medical College were not signed by Dr. Girish Tayal and they were not issued from the Directorate, similarly letter, dated 18-12-1990, on the basis of which admissions were secured at Anugrah Narain Magadh Medical College, Gaya was not signed by Professor M. P. Srivastava and it was not issued from the Directorate. Girish Tayal and they were not issued from the Directorate, similarly letter, dated 18-12-1990, on the basis of which admissions were secured at Anugrah Narain Magadh Medical College, Gaya was not signed by Professor M. P. Srivastava and it was not issued from the Directorate. It is further found as a fact that none of the petitioners in any of the writ petitions found a place in either the merit list or the waiting list prepared on the basis of the All India Pre-Medical/pre-Dental Entrance Examination, 1990 held by the C. B. S. E. Mr. Ajay Tripathi, learned Additional Standing counsel for the Central Government, submitted before the Court complete copies of the merit list and the waiting list for the said examination and the names of any of the petitioners are not to be found there Both these lists are kept on the record of this case. It further comes to light that the last allotment in respect of the 15 per cent All India Quota 1990 was made by the Directorate on 18-6-1991 after which all seats remaining vacant were surrendered on I2-7-I991. After the surrender of the seats on 127-1991 there was no question of the Directorate issuing any allotment letters on 11-1 -1991 and 27-1-1992 as it was not empowered to do so It is also stated on affidavit that the last allotment was made on 18-6-1991 and after that no allotment letter was issued by the Directorate. It also comes to light that a criminal case has been instituted at Delhi, the investigation of which has been entrusted to the C B I and a criminal case as already noticed above has also been instituted at Gaya. 9. From the facts stated above it is clear to me that it is plainly a case of forgery and fraud in which the petitioners are among the beneficiaries. Who are the actual offenders and the abettors in the commission of the offence is a matter to be determined in the criminal proceeding however, it does not require much imagination to guess that the modus operandi has been such that the fraud could not have worked out without the active co-operation of some officials in the Directorate. Who are the actual offenders and the abettors in the commission of the offence is a matter to be determined in the criminal proceeding however, it does not require much imagination to guess that the modus operandi has been such that the fraud could not have worked out without the active co-operation of some officials in the Directorate. At this stage I do not wish to dilate on this point for fear that any observations made here may prejudicially affect the investigation and the trial, if any, of the case. 10. Now coming back to the reliefs claimed in these applications, I do not have the slightest doubt that the petitioners are not entitled to any. I am satisfied that the petitioners were not entitled to admission in the m. B. B. S. course for the simple reason that they did not find any place either in the merit list or the waiting list, further, having secured their admissions through fraud they are not entitled to continue in the course. 11. Considerabl e submissions have been made in the name of the principles of natural justice specially in respect of cases relating to darbhanga Medical College where the admissions were cancelled without any notice, I am satisfied that natural justice had no application in the facts and circumstances of this case A direct authority on the point is to be found in the Supreme Court decision in the case of U P. Junior Doctors actions Committee V/s. Dr. B. Sheetal Nandmani and others, AIR 1991 SC 909 . 12. For the sake of the record, however, it is required to take notice of the several submissions advanced by Dr. Sadanand Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners. 13. Referring to paragraphs 9 and 12 of the counter-affidavit filed by Dr. Girish Tayal, learned counsel submitted that admittedly the matter was still under investigation and under the circumstances the authorities had arbitrarily jumped to the conclusion that the admissions were secured by fraudulent means. The submission is misconceived, for, the statements in paragraghs 9 and 12 of the counter-affidavit refer to investigation for fixing the culpability under the criminal law. So far as the genuineness of the admission letters are concerned it is unequivocally stated that those were not signed by Dr. Tayal and were not issued by the Directorate and hence, there is no doubt thet the letters were faked. 14. So far as the genuineness of the admission letters are concerned it is unequivocally stated that those were not signed by Dr. Tayal and were not issued by the Directorate and hence, there is no doubt thet the letters were faked. 14. Learned counsel, then, submitted that the officials of the directorate were also made accused in the case under investigation before the C. B. I. and the position, therefore, emerged that the statements in the writ petitions were made by one set of the accused and those in the counter-affidavit by another set of the accused. In this regard relying upon AIR 1967 SC 295 , paragraph 27, learned counsel contended that the mere assertions made by the state were not a month (sic) and cannot be acted upon as established facts. He also submitted that there was no reason for the court to accept Dr. Tayals statement that the letters did not bear his signatures Learned Counsel, however, overlooks that the petitioners happened to be the direct beneficiaries of the fraud so far as admission to the medical course was concerned and, hence, their statements are not on the same footing as those made in the counter-affidavit. 15. Dr. Jha, then, argued that the issuance of a notice was a necessary requirement even in a case of an alleged fraud and relied upon decisions reported in 1991 BR and LJ 165 and AIR 1989 Pat 6 . The first decision in this regard is not a judgment but an order of a few lines based on no assigned reasons. In the second case ( AIR 1989 Pat 6 ) the authority had passed an order directing that the session 1984-86 of the Womens Teachers training Course be declared as holiday and the students should be asked to take fresh admission in the 1985 session. The order was based on the suspicion that a number of mark-sheets were manufactured. A learned single judge of the Court held the direction to be arbitrary and violative of article 14. To my mind this decision has no application to the facts of the case in hand as here there is no question of any suspicion but it is an established fact that the petitioners got admission on the basis of fraud. 16. A learned single judge of the Court held the direction to be arbitrary and violative of article 14. To my mind this decision has no application to the facts of the case in hand as here there is no question of any suspicion but it is an established fact that the petitioners got admission on the basis of fraud. 16. Learned counsel, then, delivered quite a discourse on the expanding horizons of the concept of natural Justice; Kraipack, AIR 1971 SC 150, paragraph 71, Tulsi Ram Patel, AIR 1985 SC 1416 , paragraphs 72, 86 and 95 and K. I. Shephard, AIR 1988 SC 686 , were cited in support of the contention and the court was urged to extend the principles of natural justice in a case of an alleged fraud also. In the facts of this case this submission sounds quite cynical. Any advantage or benefit resulting from the fatal seduction of fraud can find no room in the protective embrace of any legal doctrine or equitable principles, such as, natural justice. 17. It was further argued that there could be no deprivation or curtailment of any right, advantage or benefit without complying with the principles of natural justice Reliance was placed on AIR 1989 SC 568 and air 1990 SC 1480 , Paragraph 112. To my mind the principle evolved in these decisions has no application to the facts of this case and there is no substance in this argument either. 18. It was also argued that even in cate it was held that the rules of natural justice were not attracted in the facts of this case yet there could be no denial of the application of the principles of fair play and a reasonable procedure concepts, which were quite distinct from the idea of natural justice. Learned counsel cited 1990 B. L. and R. J.176 paragraphs 19 and 20 and AIR 1992 SC 1806 . I am not impressed by this submission either fraud, to my mind, is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine. 19. Learned counsel cited 1990 B. L. and R. J.176 paragraphs 19 and 20 and AIR 1992 SC 1806 . I am not impressed by this submission either fraud, to my mind, is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine. 19. It was lastly contended that the order, dated 12-2-1993, while admitting the application, stated that the court was not fully satisfied with the counter-affidavit filed by the Central Government and, accordingly, it was directed that some competent officer from the Directorate, should be present in court at the time of the hearing of the case. Learned counsel said that neither any additional counter-affidavit was filed nor was any one present in court as directed. In this regard it is to be noted that on 12-2-1993 these cases were fixed for hearing on 22-2-1993 at 2-15 p. m. Mr. Tripathi informs us that on that date a senior officials from the Directorate was present. However, the matter could not be taken up on that date and no other definite date was fixed for the hearing of the case. Under that circumstance one was present on 2-3 1993 when these cases were taken up for hearing. It is further to be clarified that when we said that we were not fully satisfied with the counter-affidavit filed by the Central Government we did not have in mind any of the allegations or statements of facts made by the petitioners in the writ petition. Our dissatisfaction arose from the fact that the counter-affidavit was completely silent on the point of the fraud apparently emanating from the directorate itself. And before parting with this case I must record my uneasiness at this aspect of the matter. I am left with a feeling that such an elaborate fraud was not possible without the aid and abetment from persons in the Directorate. It is now for the directorate to find out the leaks and plug them before this malady assumes uncontrollable dismensions. 20. In the result, I do not see any merit in all these writ applications and these are hereby dismissed. Any interim orders/directions given in any of these applications stand automatically vacated. Aftab Alam, J. G. C. Bharuka, J. .- 21. 20. In the result, I do not see any merit in all these writ applications and these are hereby dismissed. Any interim orders/directions given in any of these applications stand automatically vacated. Aftab Alam, J. G. C. Bharuka, J. .- 21. While in agreement with learned Brother Aftab alam, J. I may add that admittedly in these cases the admissions have been obtained by the petitioners in M. B. B. S. Course on the basis of documents which are fraudulent and forged. For the purposes of deciding these cases, it is not necessary to find out as to who was responsible for committing the said forgery but one cannot escape from the conclusion that the benefits derived on the basis of such forged documents cannot be allowed to be sustained by a court of law. Recently in the case of Smt. Shrisht Dhawan v. M/s. Shaw Brothers, AIR 1992 SC 1555 , it has been held that, "fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilised system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human conduct. " 22. Further in the case of S. L. Kapoor V/s. Jag Mohan reported in air 1981 SC 136 (Para 17), it has been held by their Lordships that where on the admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion is possible and under the law only one penalty is permissible, the Court may not issue its writ to compel the observance of natural justice, not because it approves the non-observance of natural justice but because Courts do not issue futile writs. 23. Accordingly, in ray view too the writ applications are fit to be dismissed. Writ Applications are dismissed