Thus, it is evident from the provisions of
Order III of the CPC that an appearance, application or
act in or to any Court which is required to be made or
done by a party in the Court, can be effectively made or
done by the party in person or by a recognised agent. A
recognised agent, for that purpose, includes a person
who holds the power of attorney. The provisions
contained in the Powers of Attorney Act 1882 indicate
that there is no prohibition for a litigant seeking a writ
under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution
through a power of attorney holder. The donee of a
power of attorney is no more than an agent of the donor
and does not pursue the proceeding in his own
independent capacity. Instead, he acts for and on behalf
of the donor and is subject to the limitations which are
contained in the instrument. {Para 11}
12. The present writ petition is filed as though the
petitioner is the owner of the estate. Apart from a bald
assertion that the petitioner is managing the property on
account of her husband’s absence, there is no material
conferring authority on her.
13. The reliance placed on the decisions in
Narayanan Nair’s and Ashadevi N.P.’s cases are
misplaced. In Narayanan Nair’s case, this Court
recognised the right of a duly authorised agent to
institute a suit on behalf of the plaintiff in light of the
written authorisation produced along with the plaint.
Whereas, in Ashadevi N.P.’s case, this Court held that
the broader principles of the C.P.C. apply to writ
petitions. Neither the provisions in the Evidence Act,
CPC, the Rules, nor the precedents referred to above aid
the petitioner in filing the writ petition on behalf of her
husband without a power of attorney.
14. The right that can be enforced under
Article 226 also shall ordinarily be the personal or
individual right of the petitioner himself, though in
the case of some of the writs like habeas corpus or
quo warranto this rule may have to be relaxed or
modified”.
(emphasis supplied)
Tested against the aforesaid principles, I hold that
the petitioner has no locus-standi to institute and
prosecute the writ petition on behalf of her husband.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) NO. 2862 OF 2025
SHAREEFA, W/O. ISMAIL K.P. Vs THE SUB COLLECTOR, TIRUR,
PRESENT: MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
Dated: 25.08.2025
Citation: 2025:KER:65018
Print Page
