Premabai Krishnapai vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 2880 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
    WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1943
                        WP(C) NO. 3566 OF 2022


PETITIONER:

          PREMABAI KRISHNAPAI, AGED 68 YEARS
          W/O. LATE KRISHNAPAI, KUTTIPPURATH HOUSE,
          CHERTHALA, PIN-688524.

          BY ADV BASIL MATHEW


RESPONDENTS:

    1     STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
          SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

    2     DISTRICT COLLECTOR, 1ST FLOOR, COLLECTORATE,
          ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688001.

    3     SUB COLLECTOR, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
          BESIDE JILLA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, CIVIL STATION
          WARD, ALAPPUZHA-688001.

    4     INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, CHERTHALA BRANCH,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS BANK MANAGER, CHERTHALA-688524.

    5     THE INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL
          MANAGER, IOB BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

          BY ADVS.
          SRI.P.BINNY JOSEPH
          SMT. MABLE C. KURIAN SR.GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC 3566/22
                                        2

                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a

direction to the 3rd respondent - Sub Collector to adjudicate

Ext.P2 General Power-of-attorney, which she has obtained from

her son - Sri.Roopesh Krishna Pai, who is presently residing in

New Zealand.

2. According to the petitioner, she received the Power-

of-attorney on 16.03.2021, but presented it for adjudication only

on 06.12.2021 on account of the rampant Covid-19 pandemic

situation. She says that even though the 3 rd respondent is

obligated to adjudicate Ext.P2 as per law, taking note of various

orders and judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court holding

the field extending the periods of statutory limitation on account

of the disruption caused by the pandemic, said Authority has

rejected it through Ext.P4, merely saying that the power-of-

attorney was presented for adjudication beyond the statutory

time limit. She, therefore, prays that Ext.P4 be set aside and the

3rd respondent be directed to adjudicate Ext.P2 as per law WPC 3566/22

without any further delay.

3. I have heard Sri.Basil Mathew - learned counsel for

the petitioner; Sri.Binny Joseph - learned Standing Counsel for

the respondent-Bank and Smt.Mable C. Kurian - learned Senior

Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3.

4. Smt.Mable C. Kurian supported Ext.P4 arguing that,

even going by the averments in this Writ Petition and the

submissions made at the Bar, the petitioner has not explained

the delay in presenting the power-of-attorney for adjudication

but merely says that she was not aware of the statutory period

of limitation. She submitted that, therefore, Ext.P4 cannot be

found to be in error and prayed that this Writ Petition be

dismissed.

5. Sri.Binny Joseph - learned Standing Counsel for the

respondent-Bank, did not oppose the plea of the petitioner

saying that the power-of-attorney has been issued by the

petitioner's son in her favour with respect to a home loan

availed of by him.

6. Taking note of the afore submissions and in WPC 3566/22

particular, the orders of the Honourable Supreme Court from

time to time extending the periods of limitation, including those

which are statutory, I am certainly of the view that Ext.P4

cannot find my favour, especially in the exceptional

circumstances that the world has found itself in the last couple

of years.

7. Resultantly, Ext.P4 is set aside; and consequently, the

3rd respondent - Sub Collector is directed to adjudicate Ext.P2

within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is

presented by the petitioner.

8. For the afore purpose, I direct the petitioner to

present Ext.P2 before the 3rd respondent within a period of two

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, so

that the said Authority can complete the exercise ordered above

within the time frame granted.

This Writ Petition is thus ordered.

Sd/-

RR                                          DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
                                                     JUDGE
 WPC 3566/22


                APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3566/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1          TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION PRODUCED
                    BEFORE THE RDO ALAPPUZHA DATED
                    4.12.2021.
Exhibit P2          THE TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY.
Exhibit P3          THE TRUE COPY OF THE DELAY PETITION
                    DATED 6.12.2021.
Exhibit P4          THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER
                    NO.11006/2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
                    RESPONDENT DATED 4.1.2022.