JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has come up before this Court at the instance of Smt. Meena Kumari Sharma wife of Sri Virendra Kumar Sharma assailing the order dated 29.4.2010 passed by District Magistrate, Bulandshahar cancelling certificate of residence dated 18.12.2007 issued in favour of petitioner whereby she was verified to be the resident of Village Palibegpur, Post Sarai Chhabila, District Bulandshahar; and the appellate order dated 12.9.2011 passed by Commissioner, Meerut Region, Meerut dismissing petitioner’s appeal. 2. It appears that petitioner was married to Sri Virendra Kumar Sharma who is having his business of electronics in Delhi and is residing at Flat No. 10/1943, Street No. 9 Rajgarh Extension Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. The Indian Oil Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “IOC”) invited applications for appointing/allotting retail outlet of petrol pump under Kisan Sewa Scheme sometimes in the year 2007. The interview was held by IOC on 26.2.2009. There were four applicants but three of them were found ineligible/unqualified. The only remaining candidate, i.e., the petitioner thus was selected whereafter her documents were sent for verification to District authorities. The District Magistrate, Bulandshahar on verification found the residence certificate dated 18.12.2007 having been obtained fraudulently and thus cancelled it by order dated 1.9.2009. This order was challenged in Writ Petition No. 24 of 2010. This Court found that before passing the aforesaid order no opportunity at all was afforded to petitioner. The writ petition was accordingly allowed on 11.1.2010 and the District Magistrate was permitted to pass fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to petitioner. It is pursuant thereto the impugned orders have been passed. 3. It is contended on behalf of petitioner that she was born in Village Palibegpur, Post Sarai Chhabila, District Bulandshahar. Her father late Sri Hari Prasad Sharma had died long back, i.e., in the childhood of petitioner. She studied upto Intermediate and thereafter was married to Sri Virendra Kumar Sharma who was resident of Village Shyampur, Tehsil Hapur, District Ghaziabad. Her husband setup an electronic business in Delhi and purchased a flat at Rajgarh Extension Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. However, the petitioner did not stay with her husband for strained relations with him and the in-laws and she alongwith children continued to live at Village Palibegpur even after marriage. Her husband setup an electronic business in Delhi and purchased a flat at Rajgarh Extension Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. However, the petitioner did not stay with her husband for strained relations with him and the in-laws and she alongwith children continued to live at Village Palibegpur even after marriage. The petitioner’s son Samarath Sharma is studying in Class-IV in Primary School Palibegpur, Block Lakhwati, District Bulandshahar and her daughter namely, Kumar Shruti is studying in Class VIII of Uchch Prathamik Vidyalaya, Palibegpur. A Ration Card was issued to petitioner by Village Development Officer, Block Lakhwati, District Bulandshahar in the year 2005 and name of petitioner’s husband is mentioned in the Master Register at Serial No. 251. In the Panchayat Electoral Roll of District Bulandshahar of 2004 and 2009 elections, the name of petitioner alongwith her husband has been included. Petitioner’s husband has purchased a land in Village Jadaul, Tehsil Syana, District Bulandshahar vide sale-deed dated 3.4.2007 after obtaining permission vide order dated 7.3.2007 from District Magistrate, Bulandshahar under Section 157-A of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. Besides above, petitioner was also issued a driving licence on 1.9.2007 by licensing authority at Bulandshahar showing her address at Village Palibegpur, District Bulandshahar. It is thus contended that there was ample evidence to demonstrate petitioner’s residence at District Bulandshahar yet on the basis of occupation/residence of petitioner’s husband at Delhi, her certificate of residence has been cancelled by authorities in a wholly illegal and arbitrary manner. 4. The respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 have filed a counter-affidavit stating that a complaint was made by another applicant, namely, Smt. Meena Sharma wife of Chandrabhan Sharma that petitioner is not a resident of District Bulandshahar and has fraudulently obtained certificate of residence. Pursuant whereto an inquiry was made and in the light of result of the said inquiry impugned orders have been passed. It is stated that her residence at Rajgarh Extension Gandhi Nagar, Delhi is verified from the fact that petitioner had got a Ration Card No. 61-APL-41110183 issued at Delhi which shows that documents obtained at Bulandshahar are forged and fictitious. The petitioner is resident of Rajgarh Extension Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. 5. The factum about Ration Card obtained by her at Delhi stated in para 9 of the counter-affidavit has been replied in para 4 of the rejoinder-affidavit and there is no specific denial about this fact. 6. The petitioner is resident of Rajgarh Extension Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. 5. The factum about Ration Card obtained by her at Delhi stated in para 9 of the counter-affidavit has been replied in para 4 of the rejoinder-affidavit and there is no specific denial about this fact. 6. Sri H.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that if a person is residing at two places, it is not per se illegal. When petitioner had property in District Bulandshahar and has shown through various documents that her children are studying in Bulandshahar, it cannot be said that she did not satisfy the requirement of residence at District Bulandshahar. The impugned orders, therefore, are wholly illegal, perverse and liable to be set aside. He placed reliance on Apex Court’s decisions in Ruchi Majoo v. Sanjeev Majoo, 2011(6) SCC 479 ; Union of India and others v. Dudh Nath Prasad, 2000(2) SCC 20 ; and, a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Smt. Rachna Agrawal v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others, 2011(11) ADJ 364 . 7. The short question up for consideration in this case is, whether petitioner has rightly been held to have obtained certificate of residence fraudulently or illegally or not. 8. Before examining this aspect the undisputed facts as borne out from the writ petition and other relevant record of this case may be culled out, though at the pain of repeatation. The petitioner was born in Village Palibegpur, Post Sarai Chhabila, Tehsil Sadar, District Bulandshahar. This fact has been stated in para 2 of the writ petition and not denied in para 14 of the counter-affidavit. The petitioner studied upto Class-XII. However the place(s) where she studied has not been mentioned in the entire writ petition. The petitioner’s husband Sri Virendra Kumar Sharma was resident of Vilage Shyampur, Tehsil Hapur, District Ghaziabad. The petitioner’s daughter having born on 13.6.1996 (as is evident from page 35 of the writ petition), the marriage must have solemnised atleast more than 12 years before the advertisement of 2007 was published by IOC inviting applications. It thus may be atleast 1994 or 95. The petitioner’s husband has electronic business in Delhi and is residing in his own Flat No. 10/1943, Street No. 9 Rajgarh Extension Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. He was as such never a resident of District Bulandshahar except that in 2007 he purchased land in the said district. It thus may be atleast 1994 or 95. The petitioner’s husband has electronic business in Delhi and is residing in his own Flat No. 10/1943, Street No. 9 Rajgarh Extension Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. He was as such never a resident of District Bulandshahar except that in 2007 he purchased land in the said district. These are the facts which have been admitted by petitioner herself. 9. Now I proceed to examine the documents which have been placed before this Court to support the contention that petitioner was resident of District Bulandshahar at the time when she applied for retail outlet. 10. The documents relating to education being undertaken by her children relates to year 2009-10, therefore, to consider the validity of certificate of resident issued on 18.12.2007 the same would be of no consequence. 11. The next document is the Ration Card No. 486680, photocopy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. It contains the name of petitioner’s husband Sri Virendra Kumar Sharma son of Sri Ramnath Sharma mentioning his address at Palibegpur and his profession as agriculture. It is an admitted case of petitioner that her husband was never a resident of District Bulandshahar. He was initially resident of District Ghaziabad at the time of marriage with petitioner and thereafter is residing at Delhi, looking after his business of electronics. The aforesaid certificate having been issued, if any, in favour of petitioner’s husband is ex facie forged and fictitious. In any case it must have been obtained by giving false information about residence and profession/occupation of petitioner’s husband. The petitioner could not show as to when he was engaged in the occupation of agriculture and that too in District Bulandshahar. Even after purchase of land in 2007 in District Bulandshahar, whether he got engaged in agriculture is not the case of petitioner at all. No pleading or material is placed on record to support it. 12. The petitioner could not show as to when he was engaged in the occupation of agriculture and that too in District Bulandshahar. Even after purchase of land in 2007 in District Bulandshahar, whether he got engaged in agriculture is not the case of petitioner at all. No pleading or material is placed on record to support it. 12. The District Magistrate, however, has also recorded a finding of fact in the impugned order dated 29.4.2010 that inquiry about this ration card, he got conducted through District Supply Officer, Bulandshahar who in his report dated 8.1.2010 has informed that ration cards of rural area are issued from the office of Block Development Officer who in turn vide letter dated 27.7.2009 has informed that no such/alleged ration card No. 486680 in the name of Sri Virendra Kumar Sharma son of Sri Ramnath Sharma was issued from his office. Nothing has been placed on record to challenge the aforesaid finding. In fact this finding has not at all been challenged/assailed by petitioner in this writ petition. This finding itself proves manipulation and forgery on the part of the petitioner or her accomplice. 13. So far as the voter list is concerned, the reliability thereon for the purpose of verification of residence as such is doubtful particularly in the facts and circumstances of present case. Here the voter list of 2004 Panchayat elections of District Bulandshahar (copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition), has been relied mentioning the name of petitioner’s husband as well as petitioner at serial Nos. 859 and 860 though admittedly petitioner’s husband was never resident of Village Palibegpur either before marriage or at the time of marriage or even subsequent thereto. Similar is the position in respect to Panchayat electoral roll of 2009, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not explain as to how name of petitioner’s husband find mention in the aforesaid list and this prima facie show that electoral rolls do not depict correct state of affairs. 14. Judicial notice can be taken of this fact that in electoral rolls, huge irregularities are being noticed time and again where the persons residing in the area concerned do not find their names in the voter list and vice versa. The details of the residents are also not shown correctly in a large way. 14. Judicial notice can be taken of this fact that in electoral rolls, huge irregularities are being noticed time and again where the persons residing in the area concerned do not find their names in the voter list and vice versa. The details of the residents are also not shown correctly in a large way. Simultaneously, in respect to elections conducted under the supervision of Election Commission of India one may find his name mentioned in the electoral roll of a particular area but in the electoral roll prepared for elections conducted under the supervision of State Election Commission in that very area the name of that very person may be missing and vice versa. In these state of affairs this Court is of the view that electoral roll in given circumstances may be a relevant document but its correctness is subject to verification by authorities concerned while issuing a certificate of residence and he is not bound to follow it blindly. In fact he/she should not do so at all. This Court also find mention the name of petitioner and her husband in the electoral roll of Delhi which fact has not been disputed at all. Thus the above observations stand fortified from the facts. 15. Moreover, the fact that a Ration Card has also been issued to petitioner at her residence at Delhi has also not been disputed. The voter I-card issued to petitioner certifying her address at Delhi is also not disputed. The petitioner is maintaining a Post Office Saving Account at Delhi showing her address at Rajgarh Extension Gandhi Nagar, Delhi which is referred to in the impugned order passed by District Magistrate, and is not disputed or challenged. The petitioner though has stated in para 4 of the writ petition that she developed strained relations with her husband and in-laws and thereafter settled permanently at Village Palibegpur but nothing has been placed on record to substantiate this averment. On the contrary even the documents which petitioner had submitted to support her claim of residence at Village Palibegpur are in the name of petitioner’s husband showing his address also at Village Palibegpur. This discrepancy could not be explained by learned counsel for the petitioner as to how petitioner’s husband’s address has been shown at Village Palibegpur alongwith petitioner though admittedly petitioner’s husband was never resident of Village Palibegpur, District Bulandshahar. 16. This discrepancy could not be explained by learned counsel for the petitioner as to how petitioner’s husband’s address has been shown at Village Palibegpur alongwith petitioner though admittedly petitioner’s husband was never resident of Village Palibegpur, District Bulandshahar. 16. Before proceeding further, this Court would be failing in its duty if refrain itself from observing another important aspect of the matter which stand reflected from above discussed facts. The ration card, voter list, driving licence etc. are all public documents supposed to be issued by public authorities after verifying certain facts stated by applicant regarding his/her own profile. The physical and actual spot verification by public authorities of these facts is not supposed to be an eye wash or a paper transaction but it is supposed to be a true, honest, real and substantive verification of the facts whether they are true, correct, exist or not. A fact can either exist or does not exist. If a non existing fact or a false information is approved to be correct, the falsity of statement of fact of applicant gets an authoritative seal and approval from a public authority. This may lead and enable such scrupulous person to enjoy various privileges/benefits/advantages etc. which are actually not meant for him/her under the colour of proven truth or correctness though in fact does not so exist. Issuance of public documents in such a manner may lead to various consequences, sometimes vital. Strictly speaking, in terms of law, such a public document itself may not be said to be a forged document but admittedly such a document based on incorrect facts would not be a valid and legal document so as to enjoy immunity as is available to a valid document. Such invalid document by no stretch of imagination can be generated unless the public authorities responsible for verification of statement of fact has not colluded with beneficiary. In view of this Court whatever may be the reason for such lapse but by all means it is nothing but an illegal and unlawful activity on the part of such public authority. In absence of anything otherwise it cannot be for any reason but for extraneous considerations and corruption. 17. Such cases are coming to this Court so frequently that virtually it has become a regular feature, almost in every second or third case. A time has come to ponder over it. In absence of anything otherwise it cannot be for any reason but for extraneous considerations and corruption. 17. Such cases are coming to this Court so frequently that virtually it has become a regular feature, almost in every second or third case. A time has come to ponder over it. Why this situation has arisen. Are the public authorities not afraid of any punitive action or immune from such action, even if they are guilty of colluding with a person, coordinating and instrumental in arranging a public document founded on wrong, false or incorrect statement of fact. There is no denial that a beneficiary of illegal act has to suffer since fraud vitiates everything. A document obtained on an incorrect information which has a false verification of a public authority, constitute an act of fraud and misrepresentation. It vitiates everything. But will it be suffice to deprive the beneficiary of fruits of his/her fraud and misrepresentation without taking any simultaneous action against the real wrong doer who has colluded and helped such scrupulous beneficiary in obtaining such a public document founded on false and incorrect information. Action against the actual wrong doer is equally important and must follow as a matter of rule in every case. Such lapse not only construe a grave misconduct under the service rules but also, a crime against society. Even where a public servant guilty of such act has retired, and, the authorities find difficult to take a departmental action, there shall be no such handicap in initiating criminal proceedings. These actions should be and must in all such cases be taken against the official who has supported the claim of a beneficiary by alleged/so called spot verification, found ultimately false. 18. In the present case the petitioner’s husband, as admitted by petitioner, never was a resident of District Bulandshahar. Initially he lived at District Ghaziabad and for the last sufficiently long time is residing at Delhi. Actual period has not been disclosed by the petitioner. If he has been issued a ration card showing him a resident of Village Palibegpur, somebody in the department must be responsible. Initially he lived at District Ghaziabad and for the last sufficiently long time is residing at Delhi. Actual period has not been disclosed by the petitioner. If he has been issued a ration card showing him a resident of Village Palibegpur, somebody in the department must be responsible. Here since the authorities have disputed the very factum of issuance of ration card, I do not propose to go further but that shall not apply in respect to electoral rolls of Panchayat Elections of District Bulandshahar of 2004 and 2009 in which petitioner’s husband has been shown resident of Village Palibegpur, Post Sarai Chhabila, District Bulandshahar though he never resided thereat. It is not the case of petitioner even before this Court that her husband was ever a resident of Village Palibegpur, District Bulandshahar. On the contrary, to support the claim of petitioner that she is still residing at Village Palibegpur alongwith her children a stand has been taken in para 4 of the writ petition, sworn on personal knowledge, that she developed strained relations with her husband and other family members and as such has settled alongwith her children at Village Palibegpur even after marriage. It is a different aspect that this averment stand uncorroborated or unsupported by any material on record. Rather, and, on the contrary, the affidavits filed by petitioner before the District Magistrate, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-19 to the writ petition, to support her claim show that petitioner and her husband both are residing in Village Palibegpur for the last several years and earning their livelihood thereat. These affidavits have been obtained by petitioner from some villagers in April, 2010 and claim to have been filed before the District Magistrate. These averments also belie the claim of petitioner made in para 4 of the writ petition. Still the fact remains that two electoral rolls of Village Palibegpur contain names of petitioner and her husband. The persons responsible for preparing the aforesaid electoral roll verifying residence of petitioner’s husband in Village Palibegpur are guilty of confirming a false information. 19. Preparation of electoral roll is not a casual or routine affair but is a serious matter. Any negligence, omission or fraudulent act in its preparation deserves to be dealt with seriously and cannot be brushed aside lightly. 19. Preparation of electoral roll is not a casual or routine affair but is a serious matter. Any negligence, omission or fraudulent act in its preparation deserves to be dealt with seriously and cannot be brushed aside lightly. The District Magistrate while rightly discrediting the petitioner with the benefit she claimed, founded on such invalid documents, has refrained himself from ordering any action against those officials with whose active collusion and cooperation the petitioner could manage these invalid documents. This is a matter of surprise and deserves not only a serious stricture from this Court against the District authority but also a condemnation for having shown casual approach. 20. It is this kind of latitude making scrupulous people holding public office getting bolder experiencing a sanse of immunity against any illegal action even if ultimately detected, discovered or investigated and found proved against them. Sometimes it owe to the onerous time taking procedure in inquiry or trial for which not only the administrative machinery but sometimes even the judicial system contribute. As a matter of fact state of affairs of virtual no action is causing a havoc in the system of administration. It is becoming difficult to maintain sanctity and purity. Today the common people are crying at the hilt against illegal, unlawful and corrupt activities of public authorities but find no taker to combat this menace. The situation is getting murkier everyday. It is better to wake no sooner than just this moment and take appropriate steps at the earliest unless it is too late in the day. 21. Coming back, there is no error in the decision making process. The inference drawn by authorities concerned in the above circumstances, cannot be said to be perverse or a decision which no person of ordinary prudence would have arrived at in the facts and circumstances and material available with authorities concerned. It is in these circumstances, in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution, I do not find it a fit case warranting any interference. The judicial review in such cases is limited to the extent of error in decision making process or if the view taken is perverse or contrary to record or that no person of ordinary prudence would have arrived at such a conclusion as drawn by authorities concerned on the basis of material on record. The judicial review in such cases is limited to the extent of error in decision making process or if the view taken is perverse or contrary to record or that no person of ordinary prudence would have arrived at such a conclusion as drawn by authorities concerned on the basis of material on record. None of the above conditions are satisfied in this case. On the contrary, this Court is of the view that there is ample evidence to show that documents relating to Village Palibegpur which the petitioner had adduced ex facie show that the same must have been obtained rendering false and incorrect information. The authorities below have considered and referred to cogent material available on record to draw an inference that petitioner is resident of Delhi and not Village Palibegpur, hence, the certificate of residence obtained on 18.12.2007 was founded on invalid documents and incorrect information. In my view the authorities concerned have rightly cancelled the same. 22. The cumulative effect and the inference evident from above discussions is that petitioner could not show that she is not residing at Delhi alongwith her husband or that she is still a resident of District Bulandshahar. 23. The authorities cited at bar, referred to above, in the facts and circumstances of the case do not apply at all. On the contrary, I find support with the view taken above from the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Smt. Rachna Agrawal (supra) where this Court has observed that the term ‘residence’ has to be considered in the context in which it has been used. It is true that IOC does not mention whether it should be a permanent or temporary residence but the fact remain that one must be the resident of District Bulandshahar. Considering this fact in the light of Government Order dated 18.2.2003, referred to in para 37 of the judgment, it shows that either the applicant seeking certificate of residence must be a permanent resident of that District or must be residing thereat temporarily for the last three years. There is no averment in the entire writ petition that any of these conditions were satisfied by petitioner in the year 2007 when she applied for grant of certificate of residence for the purpose of obtaining retail outlet from IOC. There is no averment in the entire writ petition that any of these conditions were satisfied by petitioner in the year 2007 when she applied for grant of certificate of residence for the purpose of obtaining retail outlet from IOC. The documents, which petitioner has relied in support of her claim and this Court has already discussed, were either lack genuity or were obtained on incorrect or false informations and thus would not support the claim of petitioner. The authorities below have, therefore, rightly discredited petitioner’s claim founded on aforesaid discussed documents. 24. The writ petition, therefore, is devoid of merit. Dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-. 25. The Registrar General is directed to send a copy of this order forthwith to Chief Secretary, U.P. Government to take appropriate action in the matter expeditiously. ——————