Dismissed

P Ravanamma, Prakasam Dist v. the State of Ap and Anr.

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Mar 2022WP/31215/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition by the wife of a deceased employee challenging the inaction of the employer in issuing a Legal Heir Certificate. The court held that since the rejection of her request by the respondent was not challenged and she failed to approach the Civil Court for succession matters, her maintainability was not sustainable.

What did the court decide?

Discretionary direction to approach the competent Civil Court was acknowledged; writ for issuance of Legal Heir Certificate was rejected.

P Ravanamma, Prakasam Dist Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION NO.31215 OF 2017

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶4

of India seeking the following relief:-

¶5

“to issue a order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondent No.2 in passing orders on representation dated 19.10.2016 submitted by the petitioner for issuing the Legal Heir Certificate inspite of her repeated visits as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to issue the Legal Heir Certificate to the petitioner pursuant to the representation dated 19.10.2016, and to pass such other order or orders ”.

¶6

The case of the petitioner is that she is the wife of the deceased Pathakoti Satyanarayana Reddy, who died leaving behind her and alleged adopted son. She applied for Legal Heir Certificate while requesting not to issue any Legal Heir Certificate, to any other person except to her, vide representation dated 19.10.2016. No action has been taken on her representation by the 2^nd respondent for issuance of Legal Heir Certificate and therefore, the present Writ Petition is filed questioning the inaction of the 2^nd respondent being a public officer failed to discharge public duty.

¶7

During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that another Writ Petition No.43507 of 2017 is filed challenging the Family Member Certificate issued in favour of the alleged adopted son of deceased Pathakoti Satyanarayana Reddy, who died while working as Senior Assistant in the office of the 2^nd respondent and requested to list this matter along with this Writ Petition. While, highlighting the inaction of the 2^nd respondent in

¶8

¶9

rejecting the application of the petitioner for issuance of Legal Heir Certificate.

¶10

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue fairly submitted that based on representation of the petitioner dated 19.10.2016, action was taken and endorsement dated 19.12.2016 was already issued in R.C.B/240/2016, thereby alleged inaction on the part of the 2^nd respondent in Writ Petition does not arise and requested to dismiss the Writ Petition.

¶11

As seen from the material on record, the petitioner submitted representation dated 19.10.2016 for issuance of Legal Heir Certificate in her favour, who is wife of the deceased Pathakoti Satyanarayana Reddy and the representation of the petitioner was disposed of by the 2^nd respondent vide endorsement dated 19.12.2016, rejecting the request of the petitioner while directing her to approach the competent Civil Court to redress the claim regarding the succession of the property of the deceased Pathakoti Satyanarayana Reddy, but this Endorsement was not challenged before this Court, obviously, for different reasons. Still the petitioner is insisting this Court to issue a direction to act upon representation, dated 19.10.2016 for issuance of Legal Heir Certificate to the petitioner.

¶12

When the 2^nd respondent issued endorsement rejecting the request of the petitioner, the petitioner without approaching the Civil Court for redressal of their grievance as to succession, of property of deceased Pathakoti Satyanarayana Reddy, the question of inaction on the part of the 2^nd respondent does not

¶13

¶14

arise there by. Writ of Mandamus cannot be issued in the present circumstances. Hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court, about pendency of the Writ Petition No.43507 of 2017, which shall be decided, notwithstanding the order passed in the present Writ Petition, independently, without influenced by the orders of this Court in the present Writ Petition.

¶16

In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly, with the above direction. No costs.

¶17

As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶18

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶19

Date: 04.03.2022 SSP

¶20

¶21

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶22

WRIT PETITION NO.31215 OF 2017

¶23

Date: 04.03.2022

¶24

Ssp

P Ravanamma, Prakasam Dist v. the State of Ap and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P Ravanamma, Prakasam Dist v. the State of Ap and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A Pedda Subanna, Kurnool Dist Vs the State of Ap and 4 Others

Chigurupati Venkateswara Rao Vs Prl. Secy., Rev. and 4 Ors.

Mr.Lagadapati Kotaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kakuturu Ravindra Reddy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Smt. Kamala Mercy, Vs The State of Ap.

Green India Society for Social Action, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh