2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 11263
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M.G. UMA, J
SRI. S. GOPALA REDDY S/O S. VENKATA REDDY – Appellant
Versus
THE SUB REGISTRAR – Respondent
WP 100371/2018
Advocates:
SRI MANJUNATHA G. PATIL, SRI JAGADISHGOUD PATIL, SRI P.N.HATTI, SRI Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY
Writ petitions under Article 226 must be maintainable; relief for cancellation of a power of attorney can only be granted by a Civil Court.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ petition for quashing cancellation of irrevocable registered general power of attorney deed - The court found that the relief sought could only be granted by a Civil Court and not in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 - The absence of petitioner's counsel indicated a lack of interest in pursuing the matter. (Paras 1-3)
(B) Maintainability of Writ Petition - The court emphasized that petitions under Article 226 must be maintainable and that the absence of representation signifies disinterest in prosecution. (Paras 2 and 3)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to quash the cancellation of a general power of attorney deed, claiming it was done without authority. The court noted the absence of counsel for the petitioner on multiple occasions.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the relief sought was not maintainable under Article 226 and noted the petitioner's lack of interest in pursuing the case.
Issues: The main issue addressed was the maintainability of the writ petition regarding the cancellation of the power of attorney deed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that such matters must be resolved by a Civil Court, not through a writ petition under Article 226, and that the absence of the petitioner indicated a lack of interest in the case.
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDERLearned counsel for the petitioner is absent. No representation, even when the matter is passed over twice.
The order sheet dated 02.04.2024 reads as under; “At the first instance when the matter was called at morning session, learned counsel for the petitioner was absent. There was no representation. When the matter was passed over twice and again called at 4.05 p.m., proxy counsel appears and submits that, learned counsel for the petitioner is waiting to connect through V.C., and the proxy counsel prays for time.
The order sheet dated 21.03.2024 reads as under:
“Learned counsel for the petitioner is absent. No representation. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 submitted that the prayer made in petition to quash the cancellation of irrevocable registered general power of attorney deed, by declaring as illegal, without authority of law, null and void and also to direct respondent No.1 to restore the registered irrevocable general power of attorney. These reliefs could be granted only by the Civil Court not by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.
To hear learned counsel for the petitioner on maintainability of the petition, finally list this matter on 02.04.2024.” Therefore I do not find any reason to adjourn the matter. However, to afford one more opportunity, list this matter on 03.04.2024.” In-spite of that, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. It appears, the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the writ petition. Therefore the petition is dismissed.
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
