Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
The writ petitions are dismissed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Indian Contract Act, 1872 s. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Though it was pointed out by the Department before the Tribunal that as per the provisions of HBA Rules, House BuildingAdvance is not admissible in cases where purchase of property wasmade through Power of Attorney, either before the Tribunal or beforethis Court, the relevant…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 13-12-2005CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAMandTHE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE CHITRA VENKATARAMANWRIT PETITION Nos.12782 to 12784 of 2002andW.P.M.P.Nos.17206, 17208 and 17210 of 20021.Union of India, Rep. by Comptroller and Auditor General of India, 10, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110 002.
The Principal Accountant General (A&E), Tamil Nadu, Chennai-600 018.
Senior Accounts Officer (Claims), O/o.The Principal Accountant General(A&E), Tamil Nadu, Chennai-600 018.
Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, New Delhi. .. Petitioners in all WPsVs.The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench represented by itsRegistrar, Chennai-104. .. 1st Respt. in all WPsS.Prabhu .. 2nd Respt. in WP 12782/2002G.Sundarraj .. 2nd Respt. in WP 12783/2002N.Elangovan .. 2nd Respt. in WP 12784/2002Writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of Writs of Certiorari, to call for the records of the Tribunal in O.A.Nos.678/2000, 733/2000and 732/2000 and quash the orders dated 28.9.2001 made thereon. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioners in all the petitions : Mr.Vijay Shankar ACGSC.For 2nd Respondent in all the petitions : Mr.Karthik Rajan
O R D E R(ORDER OF THE COURT WAS MADE BY P.SATHASIVAM, J.)Aggrieved by the common order of The Central AdministrativeTribunal, Chennai-104 dated 28.9.2001, Union of India, Ministry of Urban Development Department has filed the above writ petitions.2. The second respondent in the above writ petitionsapplied for grant of House Building Advance (HBA). The said advancehad not been granted by the Department on the sole ground that theapplicants purchased the property in question through General Powerof Attorney (GPA) Holder and the same is not in accordance with the Rules. On receipt of memo dated 3.1.2000, the applicants approachedthe Tribunal for quashing of the same and for necessary direction forsanction of House Building Loan.3. The Tribunal, considering Section 226 of the IndianContract Act and the illustrations therein, after finding that inbuilding contract, it is usual for the agreement holder to clothehimself with authority to sell and the same takes the form of the General Power of Attorney given by the Principal, accepted the claimof the applicants and issued necessary directions, questioning thesame, the Department has filed the present writ petitions.4. Heard the learned Additional Central Government StandingCounsel as well as the contesting second respondent.
Operative part
Though it was pointed out by the Department before the Tribunal that as per the provisions of HBA Rules, House BuildingAdvance is not admissible in cases where purchase of property wasmade through Power of Attorney, either before the Tribunal or beforethis Court, the relevant Rules have not been placed. Even otherwise, as rightly observed by the Tribunal, by virtue of Section 226 of the Indian Contract Act, if there is valid power of attorney, the same isacceptable and it binds even the Principal. Further, as rightlypointed out, any purchase effected through General Power of AttorneyHolder cannot be said to be illegal or improper and the Courts haverecognised the transaction effected through the General Power of Attorney. The reason given by the Tribunal in accepting the claim of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the applicants is well founded. We do not find any error or infirmityor valid ground for interference. The writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected WPMPs are also dismissed. SvnSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarTo1.The Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Union of India, 10, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110 002.2.The Principal Accountant General (A&E), Tamil Nadu, Chennai-600 018.3.The Senior Accounts Officer (Claims), O/o.The Principal Accountant General(A&E), Tamil Nadu, Chennai-600 018.4.The Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, New Delhi. 5. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai-104.+ 1 CC to Mr.V. Vijay Shankar ACGSC SR 49036.+ 1 CC to Mr. R. Parthiban, Advocate SR 49997.VJR20/12/05. W.P.Nos.12782 to12784 of 2002.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petitions are dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Indian Contract Act, 1872 — s. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.