AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vineet Saran, J—The appellants/writ petitioners have filed W.P. No. 31940 of 2014 with the following prayers:
i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to issue the nomination amount to the nominees, the L.Rs. of the deceased and other official benefits including employment on compassionate ground with interest and compensation till date.
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant other service benefits accordingly to each of petitioners.
By judgment and order dated 21-10-2014, passed by the learned Single Judge, the writ petition has been dismissed on the ground that the order dated 3-1-2009 passed in S.C. No. 1 of 2003 granting succession certificate to the 7th respondent has not been challenged and in view of the same, the writ petitioners would not be entitled to the relief of mandamus to pay the amounts to the petitioners as nominees, as also employment on compassionate ground. Challenging the said order of the learned Single Judge, this appeal has been filed.
The case of the appellants-writ petitioners is that they are the children of the first wife of late P. Chandrashekar. One Smt. T. Leelavathi, arrayed as 7th respondent, has filed P and SC No. 1 of 2003 before the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and JMFC, Bhadravathi, under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act, 1925, which was allowed by order dated 3-1-2009 and issuance of the succession certificate was directed by the said order. The said order was not challenged in the writ petition.
It is submitted that the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition in the absence of the petitioners/appellants. However, petitioner 2, who is party-in-person could not justify filing of the writ petition after the passing of the order dated 3-1-2009 in S.C. No. 1 of 2003 and without challenging the same. However, it is submitted that an opportunity should be given to the appellant to challenge the said order dated 3-1-2009.
In our view, in the absence of the challenge to the order dated 3-1-2009, the dismissal of the writ petition is fully justified.
At this stage, appellant 2 made a request that the appellants may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to challenge the order dated 3-1-2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class in S.C. No. 1 of 2003 before the Competent Court. Having heard the appellant 2 in person as well as Sri Giri Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing for respondents 2 and 5, we dismiss this appeal with the observation that the dismissal of the writ petition will not come in the way of the appellants/writ petitioners challenging the order dated 3-1-2009 passed in S.C. No. 1 of 2003 before the Competent Court. All pending applications stands consigned to file.