M PARTHASARTHU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Fourteen persons purport to file this writ petition. Though all of them signed the vakalt from only one of them signed and verified the writ petition stating that he was doing so for himself and on behalf of other petitioners. A letter entitled authorisation latter purporting to be under Rule 17 of the Civil Rules of Practice and Order 6, rule 14, Civil P.C. signed by petitioners 1 to 3 and 5 to 14 was also filed with the writ petition. It says:-

(2.) Rule 3 (a0 of the Rules which regulate the proceedings under Art. 26 (of the Constitution) published on 21-5-1970 requires that the petitions shall be signed and verified by the petitioners in the manner proved for signing and verification of pleadings under the Code of Civil Procedure, Order 67, Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code is the relevant provision and it lays down that every pleading shall be signed by the party and his pleader (if any); Where, however, a party, by reason of absence of for other good cause, in unable to sign the pleading it may be signed by any person duly authorised by him to sign these o to sue or defined on his behalf By virtue of the provisions of Rule 3(a0 , the requirement of Rule 14 if Order 6, Civil P.c., have become applicable to writ proceedings, Accordingly, if a party is unable to sign writ petition himself any person duly authorised him can sign the same. he Code does not define the words duly authorised. Granting a power of Attorney is certainly a due authorisation universally accepted by law. What other modes of due authorisation could be adopted by law. What other modes of due authorisation; could be adopted and whether a mere letter of authorisation is one such mode of due authorisation is the question now to be considered.

(3.) Though it is not of common occurrence and may happen very rarely. yet the possibility of one person claiming to file a writ petition on behalf of several other persons, but doing so without their authority and consent or even knowledge cannot be altogether excluded. It should be noted that the right to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 26 is a personal remedy. Only a person who is aggrieved by something done or omitted to be done can bring a cause to this Court by way of a writ petition, It is therefore, essential to ascertain that only aggrieved persons come to this court. It is only in order to find out petitioners are such persons, the procedure of Rule 14 of Order, 6, Civil P.C. is adopted in writ proceedings also. If the party or parties himself or themselves sign the petition,. it is well and good. Otherwise, the person signing and verifying the petition must obtain due authorisation for the other petitioners. Undoubtedly it is only a rule of convenience but also one of purdence to insist upon production of a power of Attorney or an affidavit, evidencing the claim of the party who signs and verifies a petition that he has been duly authorised by the other petitioners so to do. An affidavit is a sworn statement of the other petitioners duly attested by an authority authorised by law to so attest. The possibility of getting false authorizations is thus excluded form in any case minimized by making a sworn statement in the presence of a duly constituted authority. It is partient to note that clause (b) of Rule 3 of the Writ petition Rules requires that:- "The facts relied on by the petitioner shall be verified by an affidavit which shall be filed along with the petition It is thus manifest that the Court is very anxious to have not only the petitioners that come to the Court but also the facts alleged by them are verified Such verification is easily done by an affidavit purported to be signed by order petitioners is neither a sworn statement of those persons nor is it signed in the presence of a recognised authority. Thus, insistence upon the filling of a power of Attorney or on a sworn affidavit is a rule of convenience as well as of prudence.