In order to avoid all future difficulties, doubts or complications, it is essential for the parties to prove 'due authorisation' by producing a Power of Attorney or a sworn affidavit of the party who is not personally signing and verifying the petition.

ORDER :- Fourteen persons purport to file this writ petition. Though all of them signed the Vakalat form, only one of them signed and verified the writ petition stating that he was doing so for himself and on behalf of other petitioners. A letter entitled 'authorisation letter' purporting to be under Rule 17 of the Civil Rules of Practice and Order 6. Rule 14, Civil P. C. signed by petitioners 1 to 3 and 5 to 14 was also filed with the writ petition. It says :-

"We, the undersigned petitioners hereby authorise Sri G. Pattabhirama Sarma 4th Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1 of 1970 to sign and verify the writ petition on our behalf."

The Office took an objection that all the petitioners should either sign and verify the writ petition or they should file an affidavit or a Power of Attorney 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 him can sign the same. The Code does not define the words 'duly authorised'. Granting a power of Attorney is certainly a 'due authorisation' universally accepted by law. What other modes of 'due authorisation' could be adopted by law. What other modes of 'due authorisation' could be adopted and whether a mere letter of authorisation is one such mode of 'due authorisation' is the question now to be considered.

3. Though it is not of common occurrence and may happen very rarely, yet the possibility of one person claiming to file a writ petition on behalf of several other persons, but doing so without their authority and consent or even knowledge cannot be altogether excluded. It should be noted that the right to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 is a personal remedy. Only a person who is aggrieved by something done or omitted to be done can bring a cause to this Court by way of a writ petition. It is, therefore, essential to ascertain that only aggrieved persons come to this Court. It is only in order to find out petitioners are such persons, the procedure of Rule 14 of Order 6, Civil P. C. is adopted in writ proceedings also. If the party or parties himself or themselves sign the petition, it is well and good. Otherwise, the person, signing and verifying the petition must obtain 'due authorisation' from the other petitioners. Undoubtedly it is not only a rule of convenience but also one of prudence to insist upon production of a Power of Attorney or an affidavit, evidencing the claim of the party who signs and verifies a petition that he has been duly authorised by the other petitioners so to do.

An affidavit is a sworn statement of the other petitioners duly attested by an authority authorised by law to so attest. The possibility of getting false authorisations is thus excluded or, in any case minimised by making a sworn statement in the presence of a duly constituted authority. It is pertinent to note that clause (b) of Rule 3 of the Writ