THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.14833 OF 2006 ORAL ORDER: The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus, declaring that the 2nd respondent is not entitled to operate locker No.50 of Canara Bank, Balanagar branch, Hyderabad. It is stated that the daughter of the petitioner by name Kotamreddy Surekha, was married to the 2nd respondent, and at the time of the marriage, the petitioner presented substantial amount in cash and gold to his daughter. The petitioner’s daughter died on 8.5.2006, leaving behind a minor daughter and husband. The petitioner states that the gold and cash which were kept in locker No.50 of Canara Bank, Balanagar branch, Hyderabad, during the life time of his daughter, should be devolved only on his granddaughter i.e., the minor daughter of late Surekha. It is alleged that the 2nd respondent has been making hectic efforts to knock away the gold and cash. If the 2nd respondent is allowed to operate the locker, the minor granddaughter would be put to irreparable loss. Hence, the petitioner got issued a legal notice to the 2nd respondent and also to the 1st respondent, to withhold operation of locker No.50. Alleging that the 2nd respondent is acting contrary to the interest of the child, the petitioner approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus to declare that the 2nd respondent is not entitled to operate locker No.50 of Canara Bank, Balanagar brach, Hyderabad and consequently direct the respondents to withhold the operation of locker No.50, or any amounts in the name of the deceased Kotamreddy Surekha. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length, and having regard to the facts and circumstances, I am afraid that such a mandamus cannot be issued. On the face of it, the matter does not involve enforcement of any legal right or statutory obligation. Apparently, the dispute relates to property rights between private persons. Hence, it is not open to the petitioner to seek a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, this shall not preclude the petitioner to work out appropriate common law remedy, if he so chooses. No costs. ______________ 20th July, 2006. (G. ROHINI, J.) Kgr THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.14833 OF 2006 20th July, 2006. Between: Dr. K.C. Masthan Reddy. .. Petitioner. And Canara Bank, Balanagar brach, represented by its Branch Manager, Balanagar, Hyderabad and another. .. Respondents.