Spouses Cannot File Writ Petitions On Behalf Of Each Other Without Power Of Attorney: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court held that, in the matter at hand, the petitioner had no locus-standi to institute and prosecute the writ petition on behalf of her husband.
Justice CS Dias, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a wife seeking rectification of land classification, holding that she lacked the locus standi to maintain the proceedings in the absence of any authorisation from her husband, the actual landowner.
The Court was hearing a petition concerning land which had been classified as 'wet land' in the data bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, though the petitioner claimed it was ‘dry land’.
A Bench comprising Justice C.S. Dias, while deciding the matter, observed: “There is no provision under the Rules enabling a non-party spouse to file a writ petition on behalf of a party spouse, without a duly executed power of attorney, in the status of an agent.”
Advocate C.M. Mohammed Iquabal appeared for the petitioner, while Advocate Deepa V. represented the State authorities.
Background
The petitioner’s husband, along with co-owners, had submitted an application under Rule 4(4d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, to correct the alleged erroneous classification of their property.
On account of delays, he had filed a writ petition in 2024, where the High Court directed the authorities to consider the application. When the application was ultimately rejected by the Sub Collector, the wife instituted the present writ petition, claiming that she was managing the property in her husband’s absence abroad.
Court’s Observations
The Kerala High Court, while examining Section 120 of the Evidence Act, 1872, clarified that the provision merely allows a spouse to be a competent witness but does not confer a right to institute proceedings in substitution of the other spouse.
Referring to Chapter XI of the Kerala High Court Rules, the Court clarified that writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 must be filed by the party concerned or their duly authorised advocate, with an affidavit sworn by the party. Similarly, under Order III of the CPC, the Court observed, only recognised agents, including those holding powers of attorney, can act on behalf of litigants.
Justice Dias, while making these observations, emphasised that “…the present writ petition is filed as though the petitioner is the owner of the estate. Apart from a bald assertion that the petitioner is managing the property on account of her husband’s absence, there is no material conferring authority on her.”
The Bench also referred to precedents, including Calcutta Gas Co. v. State of West Bengal and Charanjit Lal Chowdhary v. Union of India, where it was held that the right enforceable under Article 226 must ordinarily be that of the petitioner himself, unless in exceptional cases like habeas corpus.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. The Court, however, clarified that the landowners remain at liberty to file a fresh petition or execute a power of attorney authorising the petitioner to institute proceedings.
Cause Title: Shareefa v. The Sub Collector Tirur (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:65018)
Appearances
Petitioner: Advocates C.M. Mohammed Iquabal, P. Abdul Nishad, Istitinaf Abdullah, Thasneem A.P., Dhilna Dileep, Surya S.R., Arshid M.S.
Respondents: Advocates Deepa V. (GP), Vishnu S. Chempazhanthiyil (SC)