Introduction
In Shareefa v. The Sub Collector, Tirur & Ors., the Kerala High Court ruled that a wife cannot file a writ petition on behalf of her husband unless she holds a valid power of attorney. The Court held that mere management of property in the husband’s absence does not give her locus standi.
Facts of the Case
The husband and other co-owners held a plot of land. The land was misclassified as “wet land” instead of “dry land” in the database maintained under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The husband, who was abroad, applied to rectify this classification. The Sub-Collector rejected his application.
Because of delay, the husband filed a writ petition (WP(C) No. 24574/2024). The High Court disposed of that petition and directed the authority to decide the application within one month. Later, upon rejection, the wife filed another writ petition on behalf of her husband. She argued that as his spouse she is a co-owner and can represent his interests without a power of attorney, relying on Section 120 of the Evidence Act and Order III Rule 1 of CPC.
What the Court Held
The Court examined whether the wife had standing to file such a petition. It first addressed the claim under Section 120 of the Evidence Act. The Court said that this provision does not enable a non-party spouse to substitute and initiate legal proceedings in place of the party spouse. It does not grant prosecutorial rights to a spouse who is not a formal party.
The Court then considered Order III, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That provision allows an agent to appear or act for a party. But the Court found that it does not permit a non-party spouse to initiate court proceedings on behalf of another party without proper authority.
Next, the Court turned to the Powers of Attorney Act. It observed that while the law does not expressly prohibit a donee (the person holding power of attorney) from filing a writ petition on behalf of the donor, the proceedings must be in the name of the donor, not in the name of the donee.
Given these legal standards, the Court concluded that the wife could not institute or prosecute the writ petition merely because she managed the property during her husband’s absence. She had no valid authority to act in his name.
Therefore, the High Court dismissed her writ petition. However, the Court left open the possibility of initiating a fresh petition. The husband himself may file it, or the wife may file it if she becomes a legally recognized power of attorney holder.
Implications
This judgment underscores that a spouse cannot act as a substitute litigant in writ matters without formal authority. It clarifies that property management by one spouse in the other’s absence does not ipso facto confer locus standi. Courts must strictly enforce formal rules of agency when it comes to constitutional petitions.
The decision sends a clear message: to represent another person legally, one must hold a valid power of attorney or be formally authorized. Otherwise, courts will refuse to entertain petitions filed by non-parties who lack standing.
For any specific query call at +91 – 8569843472
Conclusion
In Shareefa v. Sub Collector, the Kerala High Court reaffirmed that only a party or a duly authorized agent (by valid power of attorney) can file a writ petition. Mere spousal status or property management does not suffice. The Court dismissed the wife’s petition but allowed room for a proper petition later.
