IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 2ND ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 26653 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- JOSEPH SAMSON, S/O.LATE M.C.JOSEPH @ CHORRY JOSEPH, MANGALATH HOUSE, OCHANTHURUTH P.O., PUTHUVYPPU VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.DAYAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PUTHUVYPPU VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN 682 305. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KOCHI-682 001. BY GOVT.PLEADER SHRI P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.26653 Of 2010 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010 JUDGMENT Challenge in this Writ Petition is against Exhibit P6, an order passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting an application made by the petitioner for issuance of a legal heirship certificate. According to the petitioner, he is the only legal heir of his deceased parents. It is stated that when application was made, enquiry was conducted by the 1st respondent and in Exhibit P5 report submitted, the 1st respondent confirmed that the petitioner is the only legal heir. Complaint is that, despite the above, by Exhibit P6, the 2nd respondent rejected the request on the ground that the purpose for obtaining legal heirship certificate is to get certain documents released and that for the said purpose legal heirship certificate cannot be issued. 2. In my view, when an application is made, irrespective of the purpose, an order is to be passed in the light of the materials available. If, as stated by the petitioner, Exhibit P5 is the only report available and there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner is not the legal heir, there is no reason why the 2nd W.P.(C)No.26653/10 -2- respondent should have rejected the application in the manner which is done in Exhibit P1. Therefore, I set aside Exhibit P6 and direct the 2nd respondent to pass fresh orders in the matter duly adverting to Exhibit P5 submitted by the 1st respondent. This shall be done, at any rate, within four months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. dsn