IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.3661 of 2011 Date of Decision : March 01, 2011. Ramandeep Singh Deol .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Rakesh Bhatia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Monica Chhibber Sharma, DAG, Punjab. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Ms.Monica Chhibber Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Let four copies of the writ petition be handed over to her during the course of day. In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no need to seek any counter reply from the respondents at this stage. The petitioner seeks a mandamus to direct the respondents to register/emboss the Power of Attorney (Annexure P-1) said to have been executed by Ms.Baldev Kaur Thiara in favour of the petitioner in the State of California (U.S.A.) on 20.11.2010 and which is duly attested by the C.W.P.No .3661 of 2011 2 Vice Consul, Consulate General of India, San Francisco (U.S.A.) on 26.11.2010. It is averred that the above stated document was presented by the petitioner for registration before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar-respondent No.3 being the competent authority, within the period prescribed under Section 26 (b) of the Registration Act, 1908, alongwith the requisite registration fee but after completion of the ministerial exercise like stamping etc., the registration was refused and the original document was returned to the petitioner with the remarks that the same be presented before respondent No.4 at Chandigarh. It is further averred that respondent No.4 has refused to register the same on the plea that the original Power of Attorney bears the stamps etc. from the office of respondent No.3, namely, the pretext/reason not at all attributable to the petitioner. On this premise, respondent No.4 is said to have declined to accept the Power of Attorney. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the registration of a document which has been executed out of India, can be declined by the competent authority only if it is dissatisfied regarding genuineness of the instrument or if it is presented for registration after the expiry of the prescribed period as laid down under Section 26(b) of the Registration Act. In other words, it is obligatory upon respondent Nos.3 & 4 to take some decision in accordance with law as to why the Power of Attorney presented by the petitioner for registration cannot be registered. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to present the document, namely, the Power of C.W.P.No .3661 of 2011 3 Attorney for registration before respondent Nos.3 or 4, as the case may be, who in turn is directed to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, within a period of one week from the date of presentation of the documents. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. March 01, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE