AMRIT KUMAR MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Amrit Kumar Mahto claiming himself to be incharge of FILCRAT industry having its head office at 1045 MIE industrial area, Bahadurgarh, Haryana.

(2.) When an objection was raised by the respondents with regard to locus standi of the petitioner, by order dated 19.7.2010, as prayed petitioner was permitted to file Vakalatnama and Power of attorney of FILCRAT industry, Haryana of whom petitioner claims to be an agent. But, an interlocutory application being I.A. No. 3000 of 2010 has been filed for amendment of the writ petition saying that petitioner has filed this writ petition as authorised agent/signatory of the FILCRAT industry, and therefore, description of the petitioner may be amended as FILCRAT industry, Haryana through its proprietor Nand Lal Narang. It is said that a vakalatnama on behalf of FILCRAT industry has been filed along with this interlocutory application. It is further submitted that a supplementary affidavit has been filed to show that petitioner has been authorised to pursue this writ petition. But from undated authorisation letter (annexure 1 to the supplementary affidavit) it appears that one sole proprietor of FILCRAT industry authorised the petitioner to collect all the documents and sign papers related to tender in question. There is nothing to show that FILCRAT industry has authorised the petitioner on its behalf to pursue this writ petition in this Court. Petitioner admittedly being an agent of FILCRAT industry cannot pursue this writ petition in his own name.

(3.) Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as petitioner has no locus standi to pursue this writ petition. However, this order will not stand in the way of the principal of the petitioner to file writ petition, if so advised.