Kerala High Court
Lt.Col.V.S.Chandrasekhar vs State Of Kerala on 30 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 33912 OF 2019
PETITIONER:
LT.COL.V.S.CHANDRASEKHAR, AGED 75 YEARS
S/O.LATE MADHAVAN PILLAI, MADHAVAM,
TC. 51/2769, KUZHIVILA LANE, PAPANAMCODE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695018.
BY ADVS.
SUNIL KUMAR A.G
SRI.SUDEESH KUMAR RAMAKRISHNA
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY
TO DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001.
2 THE SUB REGISTRAR,
OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE,
KILLIPPALAM, CHALAI P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695036.
*3 HEERA CONSTRUCTIONS CO.(P) LTD.,
HEERA PARK, M.P.AYYAPPAN ROAD, VAZHUTHACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
(ADDL R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 3-12-2020
IN IA 1/2020 IN WP(C) 33912/2019.
BY ADVS.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
SRI.A.SANTHOSHKUMAR
SMT.KAVERY S THAMPI
SMT.SURYA BINOY.SR.G.P.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 33912/19
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is stated to be the owner of a property
comprised of 73 cents in Survey No.54, 55 and 66 of Thycaud
Village, owned jointly by his wife and daughter. He says that for
the purpose of promoting the said property, he and his other co-
owners executed Ext.P1 Power-of-Attorney in favour of the 3rd
respondent, but that since the said respondent has refused and
failed to comply with the conditions imposed therein, he
presented Ext.P2 deed cancelling it; however, that the same has
been refused to be accepted by the 2nd respondent - Sub
Registrar. He, therefore, prays that the said Authority be directed
to register Ext.P2 as and when it is presented before him again.
2. I have heard Sri.A.G.Sunil Kumar - learned counsel for
the petitioner; Sri.K.M.Sathyanatha Menon - learned counsel
appearing for the 3rd respondent and Smt.Surya Binoy - learned
Senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the official
WPC 33912/19
respondents.
3. Sri.K.M.Sathyanatha Menon submitted that the attempt
of the petitioner in approaching this Court is to obtain a relief
which he cannot normally get because Ext.P1 makes it clear that
the power-of-attorney is irrevocable and that it can be revoked
only if his client violates the obligations therein. He pointed out
that not only has his client complied with every obligation in the
power-of-attorney, but that as is evident from Ext.R1(a) order of
the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai, the
property has already been taken possession of and necessary steps
for its development have been initiated. He, therefore, prayed that
this Writ Petition be dismissed.
4. Smt.Surya Binoy - learned Senior Government Pleader,
submitted that the 2nd respondent - Sub Registrar is incapacitated
from registering Ext.P2 because of the specific stipulations in
Ext.P1 and therefore, that unless the petitioner obtains a proper
declaration of law from the competent Civil Court, he could not
WPC 33912/19
have approached this Court in the manner as he has done.
5. When I evaluate the afore submissions, there can be
little doubt that if the power-of-attorney is coupled with an
interest, which makes it 'irrevocable', - as is usually understood -
then the petitioner will have to certainly approach the competent
Civil Court and establish his competence to cancel the said power-
of-attorney. However, as is evident from the facts of this case, the
petitioner merely avers that the promoter, namely the 3rd
respondent, has violated his obligations under Ext.P1 but admits
that he has not approached any competent Civil Court for the
purpose of obtaining a declaration that the same is liable to be
revoked. Since the revocation of the said power-of-attorney would
depend upon various factual circumstances and evidence to be led
by the parties, it is indubitable that this Court cannot speak about
it affirmatively, while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India.
6. Presumably being aware of the mind of this Court as
WPC 33912/19
afore, Sri.A.G.Sunil Kumar submitted that if this Court is not
inclined to grant his client relief in this Writ Petition, then his
liberty to approach the competent Civil Court may be left open;
for which purpose, his contentions may not be considered on its
merits.
Taking note of the afore submissions and since I am without
doubt that the petitioner must approach the competent Civil Court
for a declaration that Ext.P1 is liable to be revoked - particularly
because he himself admits that there was an interest created
coupled with it - I close this Writ Petition without acceding to
the reliefs sought for; however, leaving him full liberty to invoke
and pursue appropriate remedies, thus leaving open all contentions
of the rival parties, without being considered in any manner in
this judgment.
Sd/-
RR DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
WPC 33912/19
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33912/2019
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY
NO.199 OF 2013 DATED 07.12.2013.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CANCELATION DEED DATED
16.05.2019.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF FILING SHEET DATED
16.05.2019.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT FROM THE
REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED
28.09.2019.
RESPONDENTS EXTS:
TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.03.2019
EXT.R3(A) IN CP(IB)-4447/MB/2018 OF THE NATIONAL
COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL (NCLT), MUMBAI
BENCH.
EXT.R3(B) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
02.07.2019 IN AR 86 OF 2018 ON THE FILE
OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
