IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 3060 of 2011(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- BHAVANI.C.G., D/O.KAMALAKSHI AMMA, AGED 64 YEARS, CHOPPILLIL HOUSE, CHERANELLOOR P.O., KOCHI-682 034. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH SRI.T.D.SALIM SRI.PAUL C THOMAS RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE MANGER, CORPORATION BANK, ELAMAKKARA BRANCH, RAGHAVAN PILLAI MEMORIAL BUILDING, PUDUKKALVATTOM ROAD, ELAMAKKARA, KOCHI-682 026. 2. THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE GOVERNOR, MUMBAI. BY ADV. MR. M. RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 3060 OF 2011 ......................................................................... Dated this the 21st February , 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: “i) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the 1st Respondent Bank to disburse the amount of Rs.2,35,494/- to the petitioner on the basis of the Succession Certificate in S.O.P.No. 26/2009 and the order in I.A.No.2738/2010. ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st Respondent to return the amount of Rs.4,000/- to the petitioner, taken from the account of the deceased brother of the petitioner. iii) to issue such other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount lying in the S.B. account to the tune of Rs.2,35,494/- W.P.(C) No. 3060 OF 2011 2 with further interest is illegally retained by the Bank, offering some or other lame excuses without any regard to the mandate given by the civil court in this regard, as obvious from the succession certificate issued, vide Ext. P9. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to Ext. P9, the petitioner had offered sufficient security before the Court, based on which, the succession certificate has been issued allowing the IA. No.2738 of 2010. Despite the production of the succession certificate, the amount is not transferred to the petitioner, which made him to approach this Court . 3. The learned Counsel for the Bank, on instruction, submits that there is no lapse or failure on the part of the respondents with regard to consideration of the claim of the petitioner for transfer of the amount lying in the deposit but for the fact that the petitioner has not produced any proof as to the satisfaction of the security as ordered by the civil court. 4. The fact remains that there is a clear observation in Ext. P6, that the succession certificate will be issued from the Court only on furnishing sufficient security for the amount of W.P.(C) No. 3060 OF 2011 3 `.2,35,494/- mentioned in schedule item No.2 and since succession certificate admittedly has been issued from the court, it has to be reasonably presumed that the petitioner has offered sufficient security. 5. In the above circumstance, this Court finds that there is absolutely no rhyme or reason on the part of the respondents in retaining the amount any further. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to disburse the amount of `.2,35,494/- with further interest, if any, forming the subject matter of Ext. P6 to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 'three days' from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the concerned respondent. 6. Taking note of the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that a sum of ` 4,000/- has been illegally deducted from the account of the deceased brother of the petitioner, allegedly to satisfy the fees payable to the learned counsel for the respondent bank, this Court finds that this claim is also to be allowed as prayed for. The first W.P.(C) No. 3060 OF 2011 4 respondent is directed to replenish the deficit to the said extent and disburse the amount as sought for to the petitioner. The fees payable to the respondent's Counsel, if any, shall be satisfied directly by the Bank. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk