Protik Prakash Banerjee, J. - (1.) This writ petition is technically defective so far as Rule 8B and Rule 9 of the Rules of this Court relating to applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are concerned.
(2.) Nonetheless the matter is taken up for hearing on merits because the learned advocate who is on record and is a senior member of the Bar assures me that it will not happen again. He is led by Learned Counsel.
(3.) The writ petitioner is a co-owner of a certain property along with the non-State Respondents No. 11 to 25. This property was contracted to be developed through the non-State Respondents No. 8 to 10. As is usual, under such circumstances, all the co-owners had executed the power of attorney in favour of the non-State Respondent No.8 to 10. The power of attorney was executed on November 29, 2010. A plan for building was sanctioned by the Respondent Kolkata Municipal Corporation on the basis of such power of attorney. Such plan was sanctioned on June 14, 2011 pursuant to amalgamation of the premises. At paragraph 23, the writ petitioner has alleged that after the execution of the power of attorney two of the co-owners died. The dates of their deaths have not been mentioned in the writ petition and no death certificate has been annexed to the writ petition. The power of attorney was alleged to have been cancelled by the writ petitioner on June 10, 2013 by a registered Instrument and such revocation was duly notified on July 1, 2013 in an English daily and a vernacular daily newspaper, having wide circulation in Kolkata.;