the case of the petitioner therein will not fall under any of the categories mentioned in the said circular. The case of the petitioner also does not fall within any of the categories mentioned in the aforementioned circular which has been extracted supra. The petitioner, as seen from the legal heirship certificate of her deceased father, is the sister of the deceased Dayalan, for whom, the legal heirship certificate was sought. When there is clinching evidence to show that the petitioner is the sister and the deceased Dayalan died as a bachelor, the respondent ought to have considered the same and only thereafter, taken a decision as to whether the petitioner is entitled for legal heirship certificate or not. However, the clinching evidence produced by the petitioner has not been considered under the impugned order, by which, the petitioner's application seeking for issuance of legal heir certificate was rejected. It has been consistently held by this Court in various decisions including the decision rendered by me that any circular issued by the Department will have to have legal sanctity i.e., it must be in accordance with the statutory provision. No statute prohibits the respondent from issuing legal heirship certificate for Class II legal heir. However, if the circular imposes such a stipulation, it will not have any legal sanctity. Since no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner, there is no necessity for the petitioner to file a statutory appellate remedy. Further, the impugned order is a non-speaking order with regard to the contention raised by the petitioner and with regard to the documents submitted by the petitioner which evidences that the petitioner is the sister of the deceased who died as a bachelor .
