Suresh Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 2258 Jhar

                                  1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                W.P.(C) No. 2014 of 2023

Suresh Mahto                                 ...     ...     Petitioner
                                  Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad
3. The Circle Officer, Dhanbad
4. The Chief Managing Director, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Level-III,
   Koyla Bhawan, Dhanbad
5. The General Manager, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Koyla Bhawan,
   Dhanbad
6. The Manager, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Bhuli Town Administration,
   Koyla Bhawan, Dhanbad                  ...     ...     Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
                         -----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Vijyant Verma, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Munna Lal Yadav, SC (L&C)-III Mr. Deepak Kumar, AC to SC (L&C)-III For the Respondent-BCCL : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Kumar Vimal, Advocate Mrs. Aditee Dongrawat, Advocate Mr. Kumar Harsh, Advocate Mr. Surya Prakash, Advocate

-----

Order No. 04 Dated: 05.07.2023

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the concerned respondents to make payment of compensation and other benefits to the petitioner as the respondent - BCCL has made permanent structure/construction over raiyati land of one Bhudaki Devi D/o Chawali Mahto, situated at Mouza-Bhuli, Mouza No. 1, Khata No. 16, Plot No. 1957, measuring an area of 16 decimals, as Bhudaki Devi has executed general power of attorney in favour of the petitioner with respect to the said land.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents raise preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has filed the same claiming to be the holder of power of attorney dated 26.08.2019 executed by Bhudaki Devi. Moreover, the said power of attorney is not a registered one, rather the same is said to be notarised by the Notary, Dhanbad.

3. I find substance in the said objection of learned counsel for the respective respondents, as the power of attorney holder does not espouse a right or claim personal to him, but acts as an agent of the donor of the instrument.

4. The Full Bench judgment rendered by Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench in the case of "Syed Wasif Husain Rizvi Vs. Hasan Raza Khan & 6 Ors." reported in AIR 2016 All 52 (FB) in paragraph no. 24 of the same has held as under:

24. 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 done acts as his agent. In other words, the petition which is instituted 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 proceedings are instituted before the Court.

5. Otherwise also, it would be evident from said power of attorney dated 26.08.2019 that the same has not been registered as per law, rather it has been notarised by the Notary, Dhanbad.

6. Under the said circumstance, this Court is of the view that the writ petition at the instance of the petitioner is not maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed.

7. Bhudaki Devi is, however, at liberty to take appropriate recourse on the present issue as permissible under law.

(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Manish