Disposed

Sujatha v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Jun 2023WP(C)/4050/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this single-judge writ petition, the Court directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate Taluk Officer to reconsider a rejected representation regarding a legal heirship certificate. The Court set aside the impugned order, ordered an opportunity of hearing for all parties, and prescribed a two-month deadline for fresh orders without deciding the matter on merits.

What did the court decide?

Set aside Ext. P9; direct 2nd respondent to consider representation with hearing to all parties within two months.

Sujatha Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 4050 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1SUJATHA
AGED 56 YEARS
W/O.LATE P.A. SUBRAMANAYAN, KOCHERIL HOUSE, KANJOOR P. O, KALADY,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683575
2UDAYAM.S
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O.LATE P.A. SUBRAMANYAN, KOCHERIL HOUSE, KANJOOR P.O, KALADY,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683575
3VEENA.S
AGED 25 YEARS
D/O.LATE P.A. SUBRAMANYAN, KOCHERIL HOUSE, KANJOOR P.O, KALADY,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683575
BY ADVS.
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
JOSEPH GEORGE
M.A.AZEEZ MUSHTAQUE

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

`1`	`STATE OF KERALA`
	`REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,` `THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001`
`2`	`TSHSILDAR`
	`TALUK OFFICE, CHITTOOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN, PIN - 678101`
`3`	`VILLAGE OFFICER`
	`KAIRADY VILLAGE,CHITTOOR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN, PIN -` `678510`
`4`	`SUMA` `D/O.LATE SMT.MANI, PRAPPANADATHU MADOM, KAIRADY VILLAGE,CHITTOOR` `TALUK, PALALCKAD DISTRICT, PIN., PIN - 678510`
`5`	`SUMESH` `S/O.LATE SMT.MANI, PRAPPANADATHU MADOM, KAIRADY VILLAGE,CHITTOOR` `TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN., PIN - 678510`
`6`	`SURESH` `S/O.LATE SMT.MANI, PRAPPANADATHU MADOM, KAIRADY VILLAGE,CHITTOOR` `TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN, PIN - 678510` `BY ADVS.` `RAJIT` `V.V.JOY(K/61/2006)`
	`SRI.B.S.SYAMANTAK, GP.`

¶10

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.06.2023, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

W.P.(C) No. 4050 of 2023

¶12

..2..

¶13

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN J.

¶14

=====================

¶15

W.P.(C) No. 4050 of 2023

¶16

========================

¶17

Dated this the 12^th day of June, 2023

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

The above Writ Petition is filed with the following

¶20

prayers:-

¶21

“i. Issue a writ of Certiorari or such other writ, order or direction setting aside Exts. P8 & P9

¶22

ii. Issue a writ of Mandamus or such other writ, order or direction compelling the respondents 1 to 3 to issue fresh Legal Heirship Certificate of Late.Sri.P.A.Subramanyan referred in Ext.P8 after making due enquiry with notice to the petitioners and the respondent Nos.4 to 6.

¶23

iii. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court shalldeem just.”[SIC]

¶24

According to the petitioners, they are the only legal

¶25

W.P.(C) No. 4050 of 2023

¶26

..3..

¶27

heirs of late P.A. Subrahmanyam. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and their mother falsely obtained Ext.P8 Legal Heirship Certificate from the 2^nd respondent misrepresenting the facts. The 1^st petitioner represented the matter with the 2^nd respondent producing certain documents, including Exts. P2 to P7. But the 2^nd respondent rejected the same as per Ext.P9 order founding that the Legal Heirship Certificate is already issued. In such circumstances, the Writ Petition is filed.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

¶29

and the Government Pleader. I also heard the learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 6.

¶30

According to the petitioners, the Legal Heirship Certificate issued to the party respondents is not correct and the petitioners have got evidence to prove that the same. Even though, the petitioners submitted representation, the same is rejected as per Ext.P9 without assigning a proper reason is the

¶31

W.P.(C) No. 4050 of 2023

¶32

..4..

¶33

submission. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that, the 2^nd respondent can be directed to consider the representation after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. I make it clear that I have not considered the matter on merit and the 2^nd respondent is free to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merit, there can be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider the representation mentioned in Ext.P9 within a time frame, after giving an opportunity of hearing to all parties. To facilitate the 2^nd respondent to pass fresh orders, Ext.P9 can be set aside.

¶34

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

¶35

i. Ext.P9 is set aside.

¶36

ii. The 2^nd respondent is directed to consider the

¶37

representation dated 16.12.2022 mentioned in Ext.P9 after

¶38

W.P.(C) No. 4050 of 2023

¶39

..5..

¶40

giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and respondents 4 to 6 as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶41

iii. The petitioners will produce a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of this Writ Petition before the 2^nd respondent for compliance.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶44

JUDGE

¶45

RMV

¶46

W.P.(C) No. 4050 of 2023

¶47

..6..

¶48

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4050/2023

¶49

`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`
`Exhibit P1`	`PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF` `SRI.P.A.SUBRAMANYAN DATED 24/12/2008 ISSUED BY THE` `REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS AYILOOR` `GRAMAPANCHAYAT.`
`Exhibit P2`	`PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE OF THE` `PETITIONER NO.1 WITH SRI.P.A. SUBRAMANYAN DATED` `01 /02/1988`
`Exhibit P3`	`PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE AADHAR CARD OF PETITIONER` `NOS.3 DATED NIL`
`Exhibit P4`	`PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE AADHAR CARD OF PETITIONER NOS.` `2 DATED NIL`
`Exhibit P5`	`PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE AADHAR CARD OF PETITIONER NOS.` `3 DATED NIL`
`Exhibit P6`	`PHOTOSTAT COPY OF SECONDARY SCHOOL LEAVING` `CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER NO.2 DATED 21/06/2006`
`Exhibit P7`	`PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SECONDARY SCHOOL LEAVING` `CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER NO.3 DATED 16/04/2014`
`Exhibit P8`	`PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE OF` `SRI.P.A.SUBRAMANYAN DATED 08/10/2009 ISSUED BY THE` `2ND RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P9`	`PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/01/2023 PASSED` `BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT`

¶50

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL

¶51

TRUE COPY

¶52

P.A.TO JUDGE

Sujatha v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujatha v. State of Kerala

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

Roy George Vs State of Kerala

K.Ayyappan Nair Vs Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation Ltd.

P.K. Ibrahim Vs State of Kerala

Jacob Yan A.J Vs Central Board of Secondary Education

K.Ibrahim Vs State of Kerala

Promod.M.v Vs the State of Kerala