1970 (8) TMI 103 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of authorization for signing and verifying a writ petition.
2. Compliance with procedural rules for writ petitions under Article 226.
3. Requirements for "due authorization" under Order 6, Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
4. Necessity of filing a Power of Attorney or an affidavit for authorization.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Authorization for Signing and Verifying a Writ Petition:
The primary issue is whether a mere letter of authorization is sufficient for one petitioner to sign and verify a writ petition on behalf of others. The petitioners filed a writ petition with only one of them signing and verifying it, supported by an authorization letter under Rule 17 of the Civil Rules of Practice and Order 6, Rule 14, CPC. The court examined whether this letter constituted "due authorization" as required by law.

2. Compliance with Procedural Rules for Writ Petitions under Article 226:
Rule 3(a) of the rules regulating proceedings under Article 226 mandates that petitions be signed and verified in accordance with the CPC. Specifically, Order 6, Rule 14 of the CPC requires every pleading to be signed by the party and their pleader. If a party is unable to sign, a duly authorized person may do so. The court emphasized that invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is a personal remedy, necessitating verification that only aggrieved persons file such petitions.

3. Requirements for "Due Authorization" under Order 6, Rule 14 of the CPC:
The court scrutinized what constitutes "due authorization." It noted that while a Power of Attorney is universally accepted, other forms of authorization must be considered. The court highlighted the risk of unauthorized filing without proper consent, stressing that the procedure ensures only genuinely aggrieved persons approach the court. The court concluded that a mere letter of authorization does not suffice; instead, a Power of Attorney or an affidavit is necessary to prove due authorization.

4. Necessity of Filing a Power of Attorney or an Affidavit for Authorization:
The court analyzed various procedural rules and precedents to determine the necessity of filing a Power of Attorney or an affidavit. It referred to Rule 20 of the Writ Petition Rules, which applies the Appellate Side Rules to writ petitions. These rules require certification of signatures and affidavits by recognized authorities, ensuring authenticity. The court reasoned that similar precautions should apply to writ petitions, concluding that a Power of Attorney or a sworn affidavit is essential to prove due authorization.

Conclusion:
The court held that if some petitioners do not personally sign and verify a writ petition, they must file a Power of Attorney or an affidavit sworn by them before a recognized authority, stating the reasons for their inability to sign and verifying the authorization. This ensures the authenticity and legitimacy of the authorization, preventing unauthorized filings. The court emphasized that the affidavit must come from the petitioners who are not signing, not from the person claiming to represent them. This requirement aligns with procedural rules and ensures that only genuinely aggrieved persons invoke the court's jurisdiction under Article 226.

Additional Observations:
The court acknowledged that procedural defects, such as the absence of a signature, can be cured in the interests of justice, as long as due authorization is established. The court also noted that oral authorization is permissible but must be proven to the court's satisfaction, typically through accepted modes of proof like affidavits or Powers of Attorney.

Final Judgment:
The court concluded that to avoid future complications, it is essential for parties unable to sign a writ petition to provide a Power of Attorney or a sworn affidavit verifying their authorization. This ensures compliance with procedural rules and safeguards the integrity of the judicial process.