THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.992 OF 2009 Dt.3.8.2009 Between: Yadla Shyamala Bai and another ... Appellants And The General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam Secunderabad and others ... Respondents THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.992 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Sri Anil R. Dave) Being aggrieved by the order dt.2.6.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.9274 of 2009, this appeal has been filed by the original petitioners. The petition was filed with a prayer that the proceedings in Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2007 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar, be stayed. Upon perusal of the papers, it appears that original respondent No.4 has been given succession certificate by the Administrator General of Andhra Pradesh in respect of the deceased Sri Y. Satyanarayana and in relation to issuance of the succession certificate, Writ Petition No.14383 of 2007 has been filed. In Criminal Case No.1773 of 2006, X Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri, has convicted the appellants/petitioners for the offences under Sctions 419, 420 and 468 of Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have filed the aforestated criminal appeal, which is pending. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge is right when he rejected the petition by observing that the aforestated criminal appeal and issuance of succession certificate in favour of respondent No.4 have no correlation. The proceedings in the writ petition and in the criminal appeal being absolutely different in nature, the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the petition. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellants has relied upon the judgments in Mahant Ram Saran Dass v. Harish Mohan[1], Ranbir Singh v. Dalbir Singh[2] a n d C. Ramakrishnaiah v. P. Murali Krishna[3] in support of his case. In our opinion, the aforestated judgments would not help the appeallnts for the reason that in the instant case the appellants have already been convicted in a criminal case and their appeal is pending. There appears to be some doubt with regard to the marital status of appellant/petitioner No.1 and there appears to be dispute as to who should get pensionary benefits from the railway authorities. In our opinion, the aforestated both cases, namely, issuance of succession certificate in favour of respondent No.4 and the criminal appeal filed by the appellants have nothing in common and, therefore, we agree with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge to the effect that there is no ground to suspend the proceedings in Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2007. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 03.8.2009 bnr [1] (2001) 10 SCC 758 [2] AIR 2002 SC 1500 [3] 2006 (2) ALT (Crl.) 404 (AP)