Civil Revision No. 4021 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4021 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.09.2009 Rajinder Singh through GPA Nafe Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Saurabh Khatri, Advocate, for Mr. S.P. Khatri, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) CM No. 16721-CII of 2009 Allowed. The applicant-petitioner is exempted from filing the certified copy of Annexure P-3. CR No. 4021 of 2009 The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside the impugned order dated 25.4.2009, which reads as under: - “File taken up on an application for issuance of refund vouchers, moved on 31.3.2009. Report of the Ahlmad was sought in this case, which is as under: - As per record in LAC case No. 493/97/96, an amount of Rs.184734/- deposited in favour of Rajender Singh son of Karam Sngh, vide RD No. 386 dated 19.11.2005 against amount of Rs.267562/- Civil Revision No. 4021 of 2009 (O&M) -2- Another amount of Rs.2135990/- deposited in favour of Rajinder son of Karam Singh and an amount of Rs.1030523/- deposited in favour of Nirmala Devi wife of Nafe Singh vide RD No. 698 dated 25.3.2009 against amount of Rs.4545934/- TDS has already been deducted against this amount. Refund vouchers in favour of rightful claimants, be issued against proper receipt, verification and identification. Photographs of the applicants be taken on record. Vouchers be given to the concerned person only and not to the power of attorney. Application for refund vouchers stands disposed off accordingly. File be now put up on 10.6.2009, the date already fixed in the case, for filing revised calculations, if any.” The petitioner is entitled to release of voucher, through duly appointed attorney i.e. Sh. Nafe Singh. In absence of any doubt with regard to power of attorney, it was not open to the Court to pass the impugned order denying the release of refund voucher to the petitioner through attorney. The impugned order on the face of it being perverse, cannot be sustained in law. This revision is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The refund voucher in the name of the petitioner be released to his attorney. Revision allowed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge September 23, 2009 R.S.