Raman Nath Sethi vs State and Another

S.N. Kapoor, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

p> 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that T.K. Nehra, attorney is running a business of Shri Raman Nath Sethi. Shri Raman Nath Sethi is said to be the allottee who executed the power of attorney in favor of the T.K. Nehra. Power of Attorney is not registered, but it authorises the petitioner to let out the premises and to sell it off and to open a new business to enter into a partnership for running any business in this premises. This power of attorney filed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is inconsistent with the submissions made by him. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further contends that in view of the notice (Annexure B) the Government of India had decided to grant ownership rights according to prescribed terms and conditions in respect of certain markets mentioned in Annexure B. On query it transpired that this notice would not cover the case of the applicant for Sector 4, R.K. Puram is not covered by the said notice. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also referred to another Office Order dated 25.7.1996. When the learned Counsel for the petitioner was asked whether he had applied for his regularisation then the learned Counsel informed this Court in negative. Therefore, Office Order dated 25.7.1996 is of no help.

I have very carefully gone through the impugned judgment Seeing the power of attorney, the powers given there under no exception can be taken to the impugned order. Consequently, I do not find any merit in this petition. It is dismissed accordingly.