K M SANKARAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR COIMBATORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O. S. Sajeevan and M. Balasundaram took five arrack shops on lease in Mettupalayam Taluk during 1984-85. They appointed the petitioner as Power of Attorney agent. As a Power of Attorney agent, the petitioner was authorised to run the shops and also take all such actions necessary for that purpose including instituting proceedings in a Court of law against the Government to recover amounts due if any. It appears there was some default on the part of the licensees and according to the respondents, a sum of rs. 4,48,722 is payable to them. The respondents, by notice dated 12. 9. 1996, called upon the petitioner to make good the payment. The petitioner, through his counsel, sent a reply to the effect that he being only a Power of Attorney agent , cannot be made personally liable. But even thereafter, a second notice dated 5. 11. 1996 was sent by the respondents to the petitioner. In the said notice, the respondents have stated that the explanation given by the petitioner through his lawyer cannot be accepted and that if the petitioner fails to pay the said amount, further action would be taken against him to recover the said amount. The said notice is under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) A detailed counter has been filed by the respondents wherein they have contended that since the petitioner had acted as Power of attorney agent and (i) run the arrack shops (ii) operated bank accounts and (iii) represented in Court proceedings on behalf of the principals as per the power conferred, the plea of the petitioner that the amounts due to the respondents can be demanded only from the auction purchasers and not against him, cannot be accepted. According to the respondent s , the petitioner is responsible for settling the Government dues if any demanded in respect of the above arrack shops since he was a Power of Attorney agent.