Civil Revision No. 6419 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6419 of 2011 Date of decision:- 15.11.2011 Paramjit Kaur ...Petitioner Versus Indian Oil Corporation and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Rajesh Punj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate for the respondents. RITU BAHRI J. This civil revision is against an order dated 4.10.2011 whereby the Estate Officer has dismissed the application filed by the respondents for permission to take photographs of the power of attorney dated 5.1.2011 and getting it examined from an expert. Vide order dated 29.2.2008 (Annexure P-2) husband of the petitioner was granted retail outlet by respondent No.1-Indian Oil Corporation for a period of one year commencing from 1.4.2008. The retail outlet was given to M/s Highway Service Station, which was owned by husband of the petitioner. Subsequently vide letter dated 30.4.2008 the dealership of M/s Highway Service was terminated and given to an intent holder of Scheduled Caste category (Annexure P-3). Husband of the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction on 5.5.2008. The Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ludhiana restrained the respondents from stopping the supply of petroleum products of the petitioner. Vide legal notice (Annexure P-4) dated 18.7.2008 the petitioner terminated the Civil Revision No. 6419 of 2011 -2- lease deed dated 28.6.2002. The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in the of property measuring 83 square yards. In the said civil suit respondent No.4-Sanjeev Dawar, Estate Officer has filed his written statement on 13.10.2009. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed an application for eviction under Section 4 and 5 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 dated 16.9.2009 (Anexure P-7). Vide order dated 09.3.2010 (Annexure P- 8) the Estate Officer passed an order of eviction against the petitioner-Paramjit Kaur and Gurcharan Singh. The petitioner was evicted as the contract was given on adhoc basis to respondent No.2 i.e. Gurcharan Singh, proprietor of M/s Highway Service Station. As per Clause 2(b) of the Act the dealership was terminated. As per the policy of the Corporation the dealership was awarded to one intent holder of Scheduled Caste category. As per Clause 2(b), the adhoc arrangement was liable to be terminated by giving seven days prior notice. The Corporation is in possession of the land leased out to them by Paramjit Kaur for a period of 30 years commencing from 28.6.2002 (with option of renewal) at a monthly lease amount of Rs.15,000/- per month with an increase of 10% every five years. This agreement was with M/s IBP Company Limited. This company has since been amalgamated with Indian Oil Corporation and the transferee company is deemed to have been vested with all the rights of M/s IBP Company Ltd. On appeal, the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana remanded the matter back to the Estate Officer to decide the matter afresh after giving one effective opportunity to Paramjit Kaur to file written statement and Corporation was given liberty to file rejoinder. A direction was given to frame fresh issues and thereafter given three opportunities to each party to conclude their evidence. An application was moved by the petitioner to take photographs of the power of attorney dated 15.1.2009 and for examination of documents expert on Civil Revision No. 6419 of 2011 -3- 14.9.2011. This application has been declined by the impugned order dated 4.10.2011. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, counsel for the respondents has argued that petitioner-Paramjit Kaur had filed a writ petition No.17406 of 2011 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 16.9.2011. She had challenged an order passed by the Estate Officer rejecting her application to produce some documents on the grounds that the same were not relevant for the issue. The petitioner had challenged the order (Annexure P-25) whereby the Estate Officer had dismissed the application for summoning the record including the resolution in favour of Shri Gaurav Anand vide which he has been appointed attorney of the Corporation. While dismissing the writ petition, it has been observed that the Court was not to monitor the proceedings before the Estate Officer and give a direction as to what documents are admissible and what will not be. The petitioner has again challenged the order dated 26.8.2011 (Annexure P25). An attempt is being made to delay the final decision. Shri Gaurav Anand constituted attorney and Law Officer of the Corporation has been authorized by the Corporation to file writ petitions in this Court such as writ petition Nos.7927 of 2009 and 1444 of 2010. He is competent to file a petition under Sections 4 and 5 of the Public Premises Act. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal was limited to the extent whether the premises and dispute within Section 2(e) sub Section 2(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and as to whether Paramjit Kaur is unauthorized occupant or not. Mr. Rajesh Punj, counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the power of attorney dated 15.1.2009 is forged and fabricated document. This power of attorney is witnessed by Shri Sanjeev Dawar, who is the Estate Officer. The application for eviction was filed on 16.9.2009 whereas the general power of attorney dated 15.1.2009 was annexed for the first time with the rejoinder filed by the Indian Oil Corporation. This power of attorney for all Civil Revision No. 6419 of 2011 -4- intents and purposes did not exist on 16.9.2009. It is forged and fabricated. Shri Sanjeev Dawar is a witness to the power of attorney and is not competent to hear the application for eviction under Sections 4 and 5 of the Public Premises Act. Finally he has further argued that Sanjeev Dawar-respondent No.4, in the civil suit, filed by the petitioner cancelling the lease deed dated 28.6.2002, has taken a stand that the land was taken on lease for 30 years. He has placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Shri Subhash Chander Sharma and others versus State of Haryana and others 1984(1) SLR 165 to contend that the Estate Officer, who is party to the suit filed by the petitioner cancelling the lease deed should not hear the application for eviction under Sections 4 and 5 of Public Premises Act, as he has already taken a stand that the land is a public premises and he would thus be biased against the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, counsel for the respondents has referred to an order dated 16.9.2011 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.17406 of 2011 (Annexure R1/1) whereby the petitioner Paramjit Kaur has challenged the order whereby the Estate Officer has rejected her application to produce some documents on the ground that the same were not relevant for the issue. The Court has refrained to monitor the proceedings before the Estate Officer and given directions as to what documents are admissible and what will not be. Challenge in this petition was to the order dated 26.8.2011 (Annexure P-25). The petitioner is making these applications only to delay the final decision of the trial of the application. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, counsel has referred to Writ Petition No.7927 of 2009 and Writ Petition No.1444 of 2010 through Shri Gaurav Anand constituted attorney and Law Officer of the Corporation on 30.5.2009 to contend that Gaurav Anand has been authorized by the Corporation to file petitions as far as eviction petition under Sections 4 and 5 of the Public Premises Act. He was competent to Civil Revision No. 6419 of 2011 -5- do so. While dismissing the application the Estate Officer has rightly come to conclusion that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal was limited to the extent whether the premises in dispute is a public premises within Section 2(e) sub Section 2(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and as to whether Paramjit Kaur is unauthorized occupant or not. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully. The undisputed facts are that the land in question has been taken over by the Indian Oil Corporation from the petitioner-Paramjit Kaur for 30 years on lease basis on 28.6.2002 for a monthly rent of Rs.15,000/-, which is liable to be increased @ 10% after five years. Cancelling of lease deed and the civil suit is pending in the trial Court. The petitioner and her husband Gurcharan Singh have been evicted vide order dated 09.3.2010 by the Estate Officer. However, on appeal the case was remanded back by the learned Additional District Judge. The petitioner Paramjit Kaur had filed a writ petition No.9355 of 2007 claiming the allotment of dealership of the outlet on the basis of policy dated 08.10.2002. This writ petition was dismissed on 09.4.2008 by the Delhi High Court. It has been held that the contract for maintenance and handling is entirely a separate agreement for running the retail outlet under the supervision of the officers of the oil company. Thereafter, this order was challenged before the Supreme Court and the SLP No. 19818 of 2008 was dismissed on 25.8.2008. Thereafter, the petitioners were granted adhoc dealership on 30.4.2008. As per Section 2(b) of the Act the agreement was adhoc in nature and the Indian Oil Corporation reserved its right to allot this dealership in view of policy of 08.10.2002. This writ petition was dismissed on 09.4.2008 and a SLP No.19818 of 2008 filed by the petitioner was also dismissed on 25.8.2008 by the Supreme Court. After dismissal of the SLP the fact that continuation of the petitioner at the retail outlet of the Indian Oil Corporation is unauthorized. However, after Civil Revision No. 6419 of 2011 -6- their eviction order dated 09.3.2010 the matter was remanded back and the petitioner was given opportunity to file written statement and opportunity was given to lead evidence. In this process the application for getting photographed of the power of attorney executed in favour of Gaurav Anand and get it examined from hand writing expert has been rejected. The Supreme Court in United Bank of India versus Naresh Kumar and others 1996(6) Supreme Court Cases 660 while interpreting Order 6 Rule 14, Order 29 Rule 1 and Order 41 Rule 17(1)(b) held that a Company may expressly authorize one of its officers to sign the plaint or it may ratify, expressly or impliedly, the act of signing. In paragraph 9 the Supreme Court has held as under :- “9. In cases like the present where suits are instituted or defended on behalf of a public corporation, public interest should not be permitted to be defeated on a mere technicality. Procedural defects which do not go to the root of the matter should not be permitted to defeat a just cause. There is sufficient power in the courts, under the Code of Civil Procedure, to ensure that injustice is not done to any party who has a just case. As far as possible a substantive right should not be allowed to be defeated on account of a procedural irregularity which is curable.” To ensure the ends of justice the Court under Order 41 Rule 27(1) (b) CPC can direct that proper power of attorney be produced by competent person even at the appellate stage. Rejection of claim on this technical ground would amount to injustice. There is sufficient power in the Courts under the Code of Civil Procedure to ensure that injustice be not done to any of the party. The application filed by the petitioner before the Estate Officer does not bear her signatures. The application is neither verified nor signed by the Paramjeet Kaur. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in R.S.A. No.2295 of 1986 titled 'M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Versus Union of India representing Northern Railways' decided on 14.9.2011 has examined the issue of power of attorney executed in Civil Revision No. 6419 of 2011 -7- favour of B.D. Puri by the Board of Directors. Shri B.D. Puri was authorized to file the suit and authorize to delegate powers in favour of someone else. Shri B.D. Puri authorized Shri B.S. Chhikara to file civil suit and the objection that Shri B.S. Chhikara was not authorize by the Board of Directors to institute a suit was rejected. Following law laid down in United Bank of India versus Naresh Kumar and others 1996(6) S.C.C. 660. In paragraph No.10 it has been observed as under:- “10. It cannot be disputed that a company like the appellant can sue and be sued in its own name. Under Order 6 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure a pleading is required to be signed by the party and its pleader, if any. As a company is a juristic entity, it is obvious that some person has to sign the pleadings on behalf of the company. Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, therefore, provides that in a suit by or against a corporation the Secretary or any Director or other Principal Officer of the corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the case might sign and verify on behalf of the company. Reading Order 6 Rule 14 together with Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure it would appear that even in the absence of any formal letter of authority or power of attorney having been executed a person referred to in Rule 1 of Order 29 can, by virtue of the office which he holds, sign and verify the pleadings on behalf of the corporation. In addition thereto and dehors Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as a company is a juristic entity, it can only authorise any person to sign the plaint or the written statement on its behalf and this would be regarded as sufficient compliance with the provisions of Order 6 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A person may be expressly authorised to sign the pleadings on behalf of the company, for example, by the Board of Directors passing a resolution to that effect or by a power of attorney being executed in favour, if any individual. In absence thereof and in cases where pleadings have been signed by one of its officers a corporation can ratify the said action of Civil Revision No. 6419 of 2011 -8- its officer in signing the pleadings. Such ratification can be express or implied. The Court can on the basis of the evidence on record, and after taking all the circumstances of the case, specially with regard to the conduct of the trial, come to the conclusion that the corporation had ratified the act of signing of the pleadings by its officer.” Counsel for the respondents has also referred to Writ Petitions No.7927 of 2009 and 1444 of 2010 titled 'M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited versus State of Punjab and others' which have been filed by Mr.Gaurav Anand attorney of Indian Oil Corporation. I have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that Shri Gaurav Anand was authorised to file the application for eviction under Sections 4 and 5 of Public Premises Act, 1971. The power of attorney was filed with the rejoinder. No grounds to interfere in the order dated 4.10.2011 is made out. Civil revision is dismissed. 15.11.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE