Union of India (UOI) vs The Central Administrative Tribunal

P. Sathasivam, J.—Aggrieved by the common order of The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai-104 dated 28.9.2001, Union of India, Ministry of Urban Development Department has filed the above writ petitions.

The second respondent in the above writ petitions applied for grant of House Building Advance (HBA). The said advance had not been granted by the Department on the sole ground that the applicants purchased the property in question through General Power of Attorney (GPA) Holder and the same is not in accordance with the Rules. On receipt of memo dated 3.1.2000, the applicants approached the Tribunal for quashing of the same and for necessary direction for sanction of House Building Loan.

The Tribunal, considering Section 226 of the Indian Contract Act and the illustrations therein, after finding that in building contract, it is usual for the agreement holder to clothe himself with authority to sell and the same takes the form of the General Power of Attorney given by the Principal, accepted the claim of the applicants and issued necessary directions, questioning the same, the Department has filed the present writ petitions.

Heard the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel as well as the contesting second respondent.

Though it was pointed out by the Department before the Tribunal that as per the provisions of HBA Rules, House Building Advance is not admissible in cases where purchase of property was made through Power of Attorney, either before the Tribunal or before this Court, the relevant Rules have not been placed. Even otherwise, as rightly observed by the Tribunal, by virtue of Section 226 of the Indian Contract Act, if there is valid power of attorney, the same is acceptable and it binds even the Principal. Further, as rightly pointed out, any purchase effected through General Power of Attorney Holder cannot be said to be illegal or improper and the Courts have recognised the transaction effected through the General Power of Attorney. The reason given by the Tribunal in accepting the claim of the applicants is well founded. We do not find any error or infirmity or valid ground for interference. The writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected WPMPs are also dismissed.