IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 17309 of 2009 Between: Sri Nawab Ameer Ali Khan ..... PETITIONER AND The APSRTC, Rep by it’s Vice Chairman-cum-Managing Director, RTC Bhavan, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad and others .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 17309 of 2009 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the order dated 27.11.2008 passed by the 2nd respondent directing the petitioner to submit a succession certificate from the Court of law, so as to consider his request for settlement of service benefits payable on the death of one N.A.Khan as arbitrary and illegal. It is not in dispute that the deceased N.A.Khan was working as a conductor in the APSRTC. He was unmarried and died while in service. The writ petitioner, who claims to be the elder brother of the deceased states that the other brothers and sisters of the deceased gave no objection certificate in his favour. Though the 3rd respondent did not give such no objection, since the petitioner is ready and willing to give the nominal share to which the 3rd respondent is entitled as per Muslim Law, there is no justifiable reason to insist upon the succession certificate. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the Corporation and the 3rd respondent. The material placed before this Court shows that the deceased nominated his mother alone to receive the service benefits. However, admittedly the mother of the deceased predeceased him and admittedly the petitioner did not nominate any other person. Though it is claimed by the 3rd respondent that the deceased had nominated both his mother and the 3rd respondent, the record shows that the 3rd respondent was shown as a nominee only in respect of Staff Retirement benefits which has nothing to do with the other service benefits. In the circumstances, the action of the respondent-Corporation in insisting on producing the Succession Certificate cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal. Admittedly, the 3rd respondent has been opposing the petitioner’s claim, and the rival claims made by the petitioner and the 3rd respondent for the service benefits of the deceased cannot be enquired into and decided by the Corporation. Hence, it is for the petitioner to work out the appropriate remedy as available under law to establish his right to receive the service benefits of the deceased. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order, which does not suffer from any infirmity, warrants no interference by this Court and accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 27.11.2009 Ivd