IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3931 of 2009 Between: Mohd. Gul Khan, S/o. Shahjahan Khan, Muslim R/o.D.No.44-34-2, Nandagirinagar, Visakhapantam ..... PETITIONER AND 1 East Coase Railways, Rep by the Divisional Railway Manager, Visakhapatnam 2 S.Sarojini W/o. Late Satyaraju, Hindu, R/o. 40-52-52, Sanjaya Nagar, T.C.Palem, Visakhapatnam. 3 S.Sitarama Raju, S/o. Late Satya Raju, R/o. 40-52-52, Sanjaya Nagar, T.C.Palem, Visakhapatnam. 4 S.Sreenivasa Raju, S/o. Late Satya Raju, R/o. 40-52-52, Sanjaya Nagar, T.C.Palem, Visakhapatnam. 5 S.Venkatalakshmi, D/o. Late Satya Raju, R/o. 40-52-52, Sanjaya Nagar, T.C.Palem, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.1 in releasing 40% of the terminal benefits to the respondents 2 to 5 as illegal and arbitrary. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.RAJAGOPAL REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.R.S.MURTHY (ADD.CGSC) The Court made the following : ORDER The petitioner filed a suit against one S.Satya Raju for recovery of money due under two promissory notes. The suit filed by him ended in dismissal. Therefore, he filed an appeal before the Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam. The said appeal is pending disposal. While so, Satya Raju died on 15.1.2008 and respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein came on record as his legal representatives. He filed the present writ petition seeking direction to 1st respondent not to release the death-cum-terminal benefits of Satya Raju to respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein on the ground that the appeal filed by him is pending disposal. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Indisputably, the suit filed by the petitioner ended in dismissal and thereupon, he filed an appeal before the Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam and the same is pending disposal. If the petitioner has any claim over the estate of Satya Raju, he has to approach the appellate authority and seek necessary interim order so as to keep the estate of Satya Raju intact pending the appeal. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the given facts and circumstances of the case is misconceived. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage. __________ 27-02-2009 rkk