CHENNAI: In a government order dated 23.8.2013 issued in the name of the Governor (as required under Article 166 of the constitution) but not under Article 309 of the constitution, the government servants were required to exercise their option, if it is advantageous to them. Their order does not contain if it will take retrospective effect. More importantly, the GO does not contain a stipulation that the option once exercised is final and irrevocable. In the absence of such a provision, can I revoke the option given by me earlier, as I feel that such a course will be more advantageous to me? I seek your advice.
— S Vaidhyanathan, Chennai
Since the Governor is the head of the state, all orders are issued in the name of the Governor. However, the business rules limit such exercise. It is immaterial whether the right flows from the rules framed under Article 309 or not. It is enough when there is a source of power with the government, even if the GO does not say option once exercised is irrevocable still it is irrevocable only.
A land of three cents was gifted by the owner to construct a temple in 1985 and executed as a gift deed on a third person’s name. A small temple was constructed but the land was not register with SRO. Now, both the parties are dead. Can the land be registered now by the caretakers with the SRO in the name of the temple using the gift deed. Is the gift deed valid or invalid in view the executor is no more?
— Aravindan T, Chennai.
A gift once made and acted upon is irrevocable. The idol of the temple is the actual owner and it can apply for the patta in the name of the temple. It does not require any registration as already the gift deed in the name of a third person is available for this purpose.
Justice K Chandru is a former judge of the Madras High Court