The Writ Court set aside the Collector's rejection of a power-of-attorney due to the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on limitation periods. It directed the Sub Collector to adjudicate the document within two weeks.
Ext.P4 set aside; 3rd respondent directed to adjudicate Ext.P2 within two weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 3566 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
PREMABAI KRISHNAPAI, AGED 68 YEARS
W/O. LATE KRISHNAPAI, KUTTIPPURATH HOUSE,
CHERTHALA, PIN-688524.
BY ADV BASIL MATHEW
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, 1ST FLOOR, COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688001.3 SUB COLLECTOR, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BESIDE JILLA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, CIVIL STATION WARD, ALAPPUZHA-688001.4 INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, CHERTHALA BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS BANK MANAGER, CHERTHALA-688524.5 THE INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, IOB BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.BY ADVS.
SRI.P.BINNY JOSEPH
SMT. MABLE C. KURIAN SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
WPC 3566/22
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a
direction to the 3 rd respondent – Sub Collector to adjudicate
Ext.P2 General Power-of-attorney, which she has obtained from
her son - Sri.Roopesh Krishna Pai, who is presently residing in New Zealand.
2 . According to the petitioner, she received the Power-
of-attorney on 16.03.2021, but presented it for adjudication only
on 06.12.2021 on account of the rampant Covid-19 pandemic situation. She says that even though the 3rd respondent is obligated to adjudicate Ext.P 2 as per law, taking note of various
orders and judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court holding
the field extending the periods of statutory limitation on account
of the disruption caused by the pandemic, said Authority has rejected it through Ext.P4, merely saying that the power-ofattorney was presented for adjudication beyond the statutory time limit. She, therefore, prays that Ext.P4 be set aside and the
3rd respondent be directed to adjudicate Ext.P2 as per law
WPC 3566/22
3
. without any further delay
3 . I have heard Sri.Basil Mathew – learned counsel for
the petitioner; Sri.Binny Joseph – learned Standing Counsel for
the respondent-Bank and Smt.Mable C. Kurian – learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3.
4 . Smt.Mable C. Kurian supported Ext.P4 arguing that, even going by the averments in this Writ Petition and the submissions made at the Bar, the petitioner has not explained the delay in presenting the power-of-attorney for adjudication but merely says that she was not aware of the statutory period of limitation. She submitted that, therefore, Ext.P4 cannot be
found to be in error and prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed.
5 . Sri.Binny Joseph – learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Bank, did not oppose the plea of the petitioner saying that the power-of-attorney has been issued by the petitioner’s son in her favour with respect to a home loan availed of by him.
6 . Taking note of the afore submissions and in
4
WPC 3566/22
particular, the orders of the Honourable Supreme Court from time to time extending the periods of limitation, including those which are statutory, I am certainly of the view that Ext.P4 cannot find my favour, especially in the exceptional circumstances that the world has found itself in the last couple of years.
7 . Resultantly, Ext.P4 is set aside; and consequently, the 3rd respondent – Sub Collector is directed to adjudicate Ext.P2
within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is presented by the petitioner.
8 . For the afore purpose, I direct the petitioner to
present Ext.P2 before the 3 rd respondent within a period of two
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, so that the said Authority can complete the exercise ordered above
within the time frame granted.
This Writ Petition is thus ordered.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
RR
WPC 3566/22
5
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3566/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION PRODUCED
BEFORE THE RDO ALAPPUZHA DATED
4.12.2021.
Exhibit P2THE TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY.
Exhibit P3THE TRUE COPY OF THE DELAY PETITION
DATED 6.12.2021.
Exhibit P4THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER
NO.11006/2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 4.1.2022.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a power-of-attorney filed after the statutory limitation period due to the COVID-19 pandemic prohibits adjudication.
Whether the respondent authority can be directed to adjudicate the power-of-attorney without observing the field extending the limitation.
PREMABAI KRISHNAPAI
STATE OF KERALA
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA
SUB COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court