Dismissed

Chawa.Suguna v. The State of Andhra pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC23 Aug 2021WP/6136/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed this Writ Petition under Article 226, holding that the petitioner did not make a proper legal demand for a Family Member Certificate. The court applied the principle that a Writ of Mandamus requires a distinct demand made to the proper authority. Since the petitioner submitted a representation via 'Spandana Programme' instead of the mandatory Mee-seva channel as per G.O.

What did the court decide?

The Writ of Mandamus sought to compel the issuance of a Family Member Certificate is dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to make an appropriate application through Mee-seva.

Chawa.Suguna Vs The State of Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.6136 OF 2020

¶4

ORDER :

¶5

The present Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed for the following relief:-

¶6

“ to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4^th respondent in not issuing the Family Member Certificate/Legal heirs Certificate as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the law violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14,19 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to issue Family Member Certificate/Legal Heirs Certificate to the petitioner herein and consider his representation dated 22.11.2019 ”

¶7

The case of the petitioner is that after getting divorce from the 5^th respondent in H.M.O.P.No.1/2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri dated 28.11.2014, the petitioner got married to Chavva Subbarao in the Durga Temple at Vijayawada on 08.06.2017. The said Subbarao died on 04.03.2019 leaving this petitioner as a sole legal heir. Due to non submission of family member certificate and legal heir certificate, the appointment of the petitioner in Railway Department on compassionate grounds is pending before the authorities. The petitioner made various representations to the authorities for grant of family member certificate. But no action was taken on the representations till date. Therefore, the in-action on the part of the respondents is questioned by the petitioner.

¶8

¶9

During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated his contentions, whereas, the learned Assistant Government for Revenue submits that unless an application is made through proper channel i.e., Mee-seva vide G.O.Ms.No.145, dated 25.04.2015, the request of the petitioner cannot be considered and requests to dismiss the Writ Petition.

¶10

As the petitioner did not make proper application in terms of G.O.Ms.No.145, dated 25.04.2015, the action of the respondents in not considering the representation of the petitioner submitted through Spandana Programme cannot be said to be illegal and arbitrary.

¶11

In “ Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Limited v. Union of India¹ ” , the Supreme Court has adopted the following statement of law in this regard:-

¶12

“As a general rule the orders would not be granted unless the party complained of has known what it was he was required to do, so that he had the means of considering whether or not he should comply, and it must be shown by evidence that there was a distinct demand of that which the party seeking the mandamus desires to enforce, and that the demand was met by a refusal.”

¶13

In “ the Statesman v. Fact Finding Committee² ” the Court opined that the demand for justice is not a matter of form but a matter of substance, and it is necessary that a “ proper

¶14

1 AIR 1975 SC 460

¶15

2 AIR 1975 Cal.14

¶16

¶17

and sufficient demand has to be made ”. The demand must be made to the proper authority and not to an authority which is not in a position to perform its duty in the manner demanded. It is suggested that the Court should not fossilize this rule into something rigid and inflexible but keep it as flexible. Thus, the law is well settled that there must be a demand from the citizen and denial by the State authorities.

¶18

In the present case, the petitioner made a representation on 15.07.2019 for grant of Family Member Certificate, in Spandana Programme. The demand of the petitioner is not proper, since an application has to be made through Mee-seva on payment of requisite fee for issuance of Family Member Certificate. Hence, by applying the principle laid down in Saraswathi Industrial Syndicate Limited Vs. Union of India, Writ of Mandamus cannot be granted.

¶19

Hence, in view of the Judgments referred above, this is not a fit case to issue a Writ of Mandamus as the petitioner did not submit a proper application through Mee-Seva.

¶20

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to make an appropriate application through Mee-seva in terms of G.O.Ms.No.145, dated 25.04.2015. No costs.

¶21

Consequently miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶22

JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Date:23.08.2021 tm

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶27

WRIT PETITION NO.6136 OF 2020