9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (8) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rney authorising the 4th petitioner to sign and verify the writ petition. It was objected that a mere letter of authorisation is not sufficient compliance with the Rules. The learned counsel for the petitioners disagreed with this objection and hence the matter has been referred to me. 2. Rule 3 (a) of the Rules which regulate the proceedings under Art. 226 (of the Constitution) published on 21-5-1970 requires that the petition shall be signed and verified by the petitioners in the manner provided for signing and verification of pleadings under the Code of Civil Procedure. Order 6, Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code is the relevant provision and it lays down that 'every pleading shall be signed by the party and his pleader (if any)'. Where, however, a party, by reason of absence or for other good cause, is unable to sign the pleading, it may be signed by any person duly authorised by him to sign the same or to sue or defend on his behalf. By virtue of the provisions of Rule 3 (a), the requirements of Rule 14 of Order 6, Civil P.C., have become applicable to writ proceedings. Accordingly, if a party is unable to sign the writ petition himself, any person duly authorised by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n affidavit. A mere letter of authorisation, though purported to be signed by other petitioners, is neither a sworn statement of those persons nor is it signed in the presence of a recognised authority. Thus, insistence upon the filing of a Power of Attorney or on a sworn affidavit is a rule of convenience as well as of prudence. 4. Moreover, reading Rule 3 (a) of the Rules and Order 6, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure with the other relevant rules of procedure demonstrates that some such proof of 'due authorisation' is necessary. Rule 20 of the Writ Petition Rules says:-- All the other rules relating to causes and matters coming before the Appellate Side of the High Court will apply to the Writ Petitions and the Writ Appeals in so far as they are not inconsistent with these rules. Thus, the Appellate Side Rules of this Court in so far as they are not inconsistent with these Rules, are made applicable to Writ Proceedings. Rule 23 of the Appellate Side Rules of Andhra Pradesh requires the vakalatnama to be executed or its execution attested before any one of the authorities enumerated therein. That authority or functionary shall certify by his signature and designation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... verified by any person on his behalf a written authority in this behalf signed by the party shall be filed in Court, together with an affidavit, verifying the signature of the party and stating the reason of his inability to sign or verify the proceedings, and proving the means of knowledge of the facts set out in the proceedings of the person signing or verifying the same. This Rule throws much light on the problem to be resolved in this reference. It requires, that a written authority signed by the party, who is unable to himself sign or verify the proceeding, together with an affidavit stating the reasons of his inability for signing and verifying the proceeding himself, to be filed. No reason is conceivable for making a distinction between this procedure that is made applicable in the Courts of first instance and the procedure that has to be followed in signing and verifying writ Petitions. 6. It follows therefore, that it is not only a rule of convenience and prudence but also a logical consequence of the relevant rules that a party, who is unable to sign the writ petition himself, should either file a Power of Attorney or an affidavit stating the reason for his inability to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld be shown that person has done so on due authorisation, i.e., with the knowledge and authority of the party. This does not, however, exclude the need of adequate proof of the claim that the person has signed the plaint after securing due authorisation from the party. 9. The Patna High Court in Bibi Asghari v. Md. Kasim. AIR 1951 Pat 323. held that it is sufficient if it is shown that a person, who has signed the plaint on behalf of a plaintiff has done so with the knowledge and authority of the latter. It is plain that such 'knowledge and authority' should be shown to the satisfaction of the Court, to exist. 10. In Bengal Jute Mills v. Jewraj Heeralal, AIR 1943 Cal 13. it was held by the Court, after examining the person concerned in open Court, that during the temporary absence of the principals, the Munib Gumashta was orally instructed and authorised to do everything in connection with the business and, therefore, he was duly authorised as contemplated by Order 6, Rule 14, Civil P.C. From this it was sought to be argued by the learned counsel that even oral authorisation is sufficient. It should not, however, be forgotten that this oral authorisation was accepted by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sign and verify the writ petition. But such an affidavit by a person who is actually signing and verifying the petition does not meet the requirements of the situation. What is required is the affidavit of the party or parties who is or are not signing and verifying. Otherwise, the very purpose for which such an affidavit is required is likely to be defeated. After all, the fourth petitioner, who is swearing to the affidavit has already signed the petition and it would not be difficult for him to swear to another affidavit. If the Court is to be satisfied that the parties had authorised him to sign and verify the petition on their behalf, it is their affidavit that is essential to prove such authorisation and not the affidavit of the person who has come forward that he has got a representative capacity. 14. For the reasons, I answer the reference by holding that if some of the parties to the writ petition do not personally sign and verify it, but authorise somebody else to sign and verify on their behalf either a Power of Attorney or an affidavit sworn by them in the presence of an attesting Officer or functionary recognised by law stating the reasons for their inability to sign an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
