IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2011 / 8TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 28631 of 2010(D) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SHAMBHU NAMBOODIRI, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O.ESWARAN NAMBOODIRI, EDAKKAT MANA,KUNJATHUR PO, MANJESHWAR - 671 323, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.JOHNY THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUNHATHOOR VILLAGE KUNHATHOOR, MANJESHWAR-671 323, KASARAGOD DISTRICT 2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE,KASARAGOD 3. THE SUB TREASURY OFFICER, MANJESHWAR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.28631/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE. P2 COPY OF THE PENSION PAYMENT ORDER IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. P3 COPY OF THE FAMILY PENSIONER'S BILL IN FORM TR 81 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P4 COPY OF THE DIRECTION MADE BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P5 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT REFUSING TO GIVE NO MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE. P6 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 7/6/2010. P7 COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P8 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE LOK ADALATH DATED 10/7/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.28631 OF 2010(D) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner's wife Smt. Saraswathy. K was an aided school teacher in S.V.V.A.U.P.S, Kodlamogaru in Kaaragod District. While in service, his wife expired on 1.8.2001. Ext.P1 is the death certificate. According to the petitioner till November, 2009, he was receiving family pension. Ext.P2 is the Pension Payment Order. 2. while so, by Ext.P4, the 3rd respondent called upon the petitioner to produce non-remarriage certificate for the continued payment of family pension. Thereupon the petitioner made Ext.P5 application to tHe first respondent. By endorsement made on Ext.P5, first respondent declined the certificate stating that on enquiry, he came to know that the petitioner had contracted a second marriage. Petitioner made complaints and that finally resulted in Ext.P7 from the Tahsildar. In the communication the Tahsildar also declined the petitioner's request stating mainly that in the account maintained by one Sreedevi in the Manjeswaran Co-operative Bank petitioner's name was shown as WPC.No.28631 /2010 :2 : her husband. Petitioner states that thereupon he approached the Legal Services Authority, Kannur. Before the Legal Services Authority, petitioner and the aforesaid Sreedevi appeared and stated that they are not husband and wife. Recording their submission, the case was closed by Ext.P8 proceedings. Even thereafter the non-remarriage certificate was not issued and that led the petitioner to file this writ petition. 3. Petitioner states that after the death of his wife on 1.8.2001, in view of his old age, he engaged the aforesaid Sreedevi as a home nurse and that was misunderstood as a case of re-marriage and that the petitioner has not married that anybody and therefore the stand taken by the Village Officer and the Tahsildar on Exts.P5 and P7 are factually incorrect. 4. True as contended by the learned Government Pleader the question is whether the petitioner has contracted a second marriage is a question of fact and if the Tahsildar or the Village Officer has entered into a finding on that issue, such factual finding cannot be upset by this court unless such finding is vitiated by perversity. Ext.P5 only says that on enquiry, the Village Officer found that the petitioner has contracted a re- WPC.No.28631 /2010 :3 : marriage. The basis of such finding is not disclosed in Ext. P5, whereas in Ext.P7, an entry in the bank record alone is relied on to conclude on that issue, which according to the petitioner is an erroneous statement. In my view, it is for the Tahsildar or the Village Officer to conduct an enquiry and justify their conclusions. 5. Therefore I direct that on the production of a copy of this judgment, the 2nd respondent will conduct appropriate enquiry into the claim of the petitioner and pass fresh orders in the matter. This shall be done with notice to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 4 weeks from the date of production of the copy of the judgment. Needless to say that, if the finding is in favour of the petitioner, necessary certificate will be issued to him. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No.28631 /2010 :4 :