Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • Mr. Javed Ahmad & Mr. Eram Khan, Advocates.
  • Ms. Avnish Ahlawat with Ms. Latika Choudhary, Advocates.
Judges
  • Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.
Acts
  • Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • Mr. Javed Ahmad & Mr. Eram Khan, Advocates.
  • Ms. Avnish Ahlawat with Ms. Latika Choudhary, Advocates.
Judges
  • Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.
Acts
  • Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Summary of Opinion — Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner alleges that his father was the owner of built-up property No. 356 in Block-A (basement, ground and first floor) in New Sabzi Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi, the land under which was granted to the father by the DDA on a perpetual lease. The market (New Sabzi Mandi) is managed by respondents no. 1 and 2 (APMC). The petitioner admits that his father executed and registered a General Power of Attorney ("GPA") dated 20 December 1995 in favour of respondent no. 3, Sh. Harbhajan Singh, who has been in possession since. The father died on 10 June 2007, and the other natural heirs purportedly relinquished their rights in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner made representations to respondents no. 1 and 2 asking them not to renew the licence in favour of respondent no. 3, but the APMC continued to renew the licence. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a mandamus to cancel the licence issued to respondent no. 3 in respect of the property.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the General Power of Attorney executed by the petitioner’s father terminated on the father's death such that respondent no. 3 ceased to have authority to secure renewal of the licence from respondents no. 1 & 2 APMC.
  2. Whether the remedy sought by the petitioner under Article 226 (public law writ) is appropriate to challenge the licence renewal based on an alleged dispute of title arising from the GPA.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The GPA executed by the petitioner's father terminated on his death, and therefore respondent no. 3 is no longer entitled to have the licence renewed by respondents no. 1 & 2 APMC.
  • The other natural heirs have relinquished their rights in favour of the petitioner, supporting the petitioner's claim to the property.
  • The petitioner made representations to the APMC requesting non-renewal of the licence to respondent no. 3, but the APMC continued to renew it.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondents' specific legal arguments in opposition to the petition.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Asha M. Jain. v. The Canara Bank & Ors MANU/DE/1304/2001 The Division Bench held that judicial notice must be taken of transactions of sales in the guise of power of attorney prevalent in the city. The court relied on this authority to support the observation that powers of attorney may effectuate transactions akin to sale and that such instruments should not be lightly disturbed by public law remedies; it bolstered the court's view that the petitioner’s grievance concerning title is to be pursued in civil fora rather than by writ.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the GPA and recorded that it vested broad powers in respondent no. 3, including powers of sale, letting, and realization of consideration. The petitioner had not pleaded the reason for execution of the GPA nor asserted that it was without consideration. On inquiry, the petitioner's counsel could not explain the reason for the GPA or any familial relationship between respondent no. 3 and the petitioner's father (later stating respondent no. 3 was a servant). The original perpetual lease, though allegedly in the petitioner’s custody, was not filed.

The court found the petitioner’s sole premise — that the GPA terminated on the death of the father — to be contrary to law, specifically citing Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The court considered the GPA to appear to be for consideration. The Division Bench's decision in Asha M. Jain (MANU/DE/1304/2001) was invoked to note the prevalence of transactions effected through power of attorney and to caution against treating such instruments as automatically terminable on death for the purposes of public law relief.

The court held that a public law remedy under Article 226 should not be used to compel or "arm-twist" the private party (respondent no. 3) in the circumstances alleged. If the petitioner has a bona fide dispute as to title with respondent no. 3, the appropriate remedy is a civil suit and/or arbitration where possible, rather than the writ relief sought.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED.

Direct effect: The writ petition seeking a mandamus to cancel the licence issued to respondent no. 3 was dismissed and there was no order as to costs. The court indicated that disputes concerning title and the effects of a power of attorney should be resolved through civil proceedings or arbitration and not by invoking Article 226 as a substitute for those remedies. The opinion does not announce any new legal principle beyond application of existing law (Section 202, Indian Contract Act, 1872, and the cited Division Bench authority).

Show full summary ...

    Surender Malhotra Petitioner v. Agricultural Products Market Committee & Ors. S

    RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

    1. The father of the petitioner is claimed to have been the owner of built up property bearing No. 356 in Block-A comprising the basement, ground and first floor in New Sabzi Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi. The counsel for the petitioner states that the perpetual lease deed of the land underneath the said property had been granted to the father of the petitioner by the DDA. It is stated that the said property is situated in the New Sabzi Mandi which is being managed by the respondents no. 1 & 2 APMC.

    2. It is further admitted by the petitioner that his father executed and registered a General Power of Attorney dated 20th December, 1995 with respect to the said property in favour of the respondent no. 3 Sh. Harbhajan Singh and the said Sh. Harbhajan Singh since then is in possession of the property.

    3. The petitioner claims that his father died on 10 June, 2007 and the other natural heirs of his father have relinquished their rights in the aforesaid property in favour of the petitioner. It is further the claim of the petitioner that in spite of his representations to the respondents no. 1 & 2 APMC not to renew the license with respect to the said property in favour of the respondent no. 3, respondents no. 1 & 2 APMC has been renewing the license in favour of the respondent no. 3. This writ petition has been field seeking mandamus to the respondents no. 1 & 2 APMC to cancel the license issued to the respondent no. 3 with respect to the aforesaid property.

    4. The sole ground on which the petitioner is claiming to be entitled to the said relief is that since the GPA executed by his father in favour of the respondent no. 3 has come to an end on the demise of his father, the respondent no. 3 on the basis of the said power of attorney is now not entitled to the renewal of license from the respondents no. 1 & 2 APMC.

    5. Though the petitioner in the petition has pleaded that the GPA was granted to the respondent no. 3 only to use the property but a perusal of the GPA shows that all possible powers which could be exercised with respect to the property were vested in the respondent no. 3 under the said deed including of sale, letting, realization of consideration etc.

    6. The petitioner in the petition has not stated any reason as to why the power of attorney aforesaid was executed. There is no statement in the petition that the power of attorney was without consideration.

    7. I have enquired from the counsel for the petitioner whether the respondent no. 3 was related in any manner to the father of the petitioner. The answer is in the negative. The counsel for the petitioner is also not able to state that what was the reason for the execution of the said power of attorney. On enquiry it is stated that the original perpetual lease is in custody of the petitioner though has not been filed along with the petition. The counsel for the petitioner at this stage states that the respondent no. 3 was the servant of the father of the petitioner.

    8. The sole premise on which the petition was filed i.e of the GPA coming to an end on the demise of the father of the petitioner, is contrary to law i.e Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The power of attorney, from a reading thereof appears to be for consideration. The Division Bench of this Court in Asha M. Jain. v. The Canara Bank & Ors MANU/DE/1304/2001 has also held that judicial notice has to be taken of the transaction of sales in the guise of power of attorney prevalent in the city.

    9. The public law remedy of Article 226 cannot be allowed to be used to arm twist the respondent no. 3, as appears to be the case here and if the petitioner has any bona fide dispute as to the title with the respondent no. 3, the remedy therefor is by way of civil suit and/or arbitration if possible and not in the manner sought.

    10. There is thus no merit in the petition; the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Surender Malhotra Petitioner v. Agricultural Products Market Committee & Ors. S
    (Aug 4, 2011)