Lipika Sengupta vs The State Of West Bengal And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 5547 Cal

S/L. 6.
August 17, 2022.
MNS.


                                    WPA No. 15154 of 2022

                                       Lipika Sengupta
                                              Vs.
                             The State of West Bengal and others


                          Mr. Srijib Chakraborty,
                          Mr. Francis Samson Correa,
                          Mr. Sunny Nandy,
                          Ms. Kiran Kumari Mahato,
                          Mr. Subha Pathak,
                          Mr. Tamal Singh Roy

                                             ... for the petitioner.

                          Mr. Amitesh Banerjee,
                          Mr. Suddhadev Adak

                                              ...for the State.

                          Mr. Anindya Bose,
                          Ms. Snigdha Saha,
                          Mr. Diptendu Mondal

                                           ...for the respondent no. 4.

At the outset, an objection has been taken

by learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 to the

filing and maintainability of the writ petition in the

name of the Constituted Attorney of the aggrieved

person.

It transpires from the pleadings in the writ

petition that one Lipika Sengupta, acting as

Constituted Attorney of her son, namely,

Abhishek Sengupta, has filed the writ petition in

her own name, couching the writ petition in such

a manner as if the cause of action pertains to the

petitioner.

Learned counsel for the respondent no. 4

cites a Full Bench judgment of the Allahabad

High Court reported at AIR 2016 Allahabad 52

(Syed Wasif Husain Rizvi Vs. Hasan Raza Khand

and others) for the proposition that when a writ

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is

instituted through a power of attorney holder, the

holder of the power of attorney does not espouse

a right or claim personal to him but acts as an

agent of the donor of the instrument. The petition

which is instituted, is always instituted in the

name of the principal who is the donor of the

power of attorney and through whom the donee

acts as his agent. In other words, it was held, the

application under Article 226 of the Constitution is

not by the power of attorney holder independently

for himself but as an agent acting for and on

behalf of the principal in whose name the writ

proceeding is instituted before the Court.

At this juncture, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner submits that the petitioner be

given liberty, in view of such technical errors, to

withdraw the writ petition and file a fresh writ

petition in the name of the son of the petitioner,

that is, Abhishek Sengupta, on the self-same

cause of action.

Upon hearing learned counsel, WPA No.

15154 of 2022 is dismissed as withdrawn, with

liberty to the writ petitioner to file an appropriate

writ petition on the self-same cause of action in

the name of the son of the present petitioner, that

is, Abhishek Sengupta, in the capacity of a

Constituted Attorney of the said Abhishek

Sengupta.

Leave is granted to the petitioner to

mention the matter for inclusion in the list

immediately upon such fresh writ petition being

filed.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this

order, if applied for, be made available to the

parties upon compliance with the requisite

formalities.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)