Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Golam Mowla Mullick & Ors vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 7 May, 2008
Author: Dipankar Datta
Bench: Dipankar Datta
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
W.P. No.20129 (W) of 2007
Golam Mowla Mullick & ors.
....Petitioners
Versus
State of West Bengal & ors.
....Respondents
Mr. B. Ghoshal Mr. D. Sinha Roy ...for the petitioners Dr. D. P. Majumdar Mr. U. Trivedi ...for the respondents Before the Hon'ble Justice Dipankar Datta Heard on : 18.4.2008 Judgment on : 7.5.2008 The petitioners are presently residing at Dacca in Bangladesh. They claim to be owners of certain properties under police stations Jagatballavpur and Domjur in the district of Howrah. They executed a power of attorney in favour of Abdul Motin Mullick authorizing him to execute sale deed in respect of their properties. The power was authenticated by an Advocate and notary public of Bangladesh and the same was duly countersigned by the First Class Magistrate, Dacca. Copy of the power of attorney is annexure P-1 to the petition. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the power of attorney being placed before the respondents 2 and 3, they have refused to act thereon. A notice demanding justice was issued on 16.8.07 which also did not yield any positive result.
Feeling aggrieved by the refusal of the respondents 2 and 3 to act on the said power of attorney, the present petition has been filed, inter alia, praying for the following relief :
(a) Issue a Rule/writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents and each one of them to accept, entertain and/or act upon the Power of Attorney dated 22.3.2007, as referred to in Annexure;
(b) Issue any other appropriate writ or writa, order/orders and/or directions to consider the written representation of the Writ Petitioners dated 16th August, 2007 as referred to in Annexure-
Mr. Ghoshal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Dr. Majumdar, learned Counsel for the respondents have advanced elaborate arguments which are not required to be dealt with in detail in view of the fact that the respondents 2 and 3, in exercise of power conferred on them under the Registration Act, 1908 have not yet refused to accept the said power of attorney in writing.
In terms of Section 33(4) of the Registration Act a power of attorney of the nature executed by the petitioners, authenticated by a notary public and countersigned by a Magistrate of the first class proves itself and there appears to be no plausible reason for not accepting it unless of course the respondents 2 and 3 have reason to believe that the power of attorney is either forged or fabricated.
In view thereof this writ petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners, through their constituted attorney, to present the said power of attorney before the said respondents 2 and 3 again. Within four weeks from date of such presentation, the respondents 2 and 3 shall consider whether to act on the basis thereof or not. If the power of attorney cannot be acted upon for any cogent reason, such reason shall be conveyed to the petitioners or to their constituted attorney within the time fixed above to enable them meet the same and/or to place their version. After the petitioners or their constituted attorney places their version, the respondents 2 and 3 shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within two weeks thereafter. It is made clear that if the respondents 2 and 3 do not respond within four weeks from date of presentation of the power of attorney before them, it shall be presumed that they have no objection in relation thereto and action in accordance with law shall follow.
Parties, however, shall bear their own costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be furnished to the applicant within 4 days from date of putting in requisites therefor.
(DIPANKAR DATTA, J.)