IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2011 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 27181 of 2011(W) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- DR.C.VASANTHA KUMARI, W/O.LATE ADV.M.JANARDHANAN, AGED 58 YEARS, SREE VIHAR, P.O.KADIRUR, THALASSERY-670 642, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, KERALA ADVOCATE WELFARE FUND TRUSTEE COMMITTEE, BAR COUNCIL BHAVAN, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, KOCHI- 682 031. 2. BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BAR COUNCIL BHAVAN, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, KOCHI-682 031. 3. M.RAVEENDRANATH, MANUJASTH HOUSE, P.O. PATHAYALE, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 004. 4. KERALA ADVOCATE WELFARE FUND TRUSTEE COMMITTEE, BAR COUNCIL BHAVAN, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, KOCHI- 682 031, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH R4 BY ADV. SRI. T.A.SHAJI, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.27181/2011 W APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT-P1. TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO WELFARE FUND OF SHRI M.JANARDHANAN. EXHIBIT-P2. TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL HEIR CERTIFICATE DATED 8/1/2010 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, THALASSERY. EXHIBIT-P3. TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR WELFARE FUND SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER WITH COVERING LETTER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 25.3.2010. EXHIBIT-P4. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.6.2010 SENT BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE DISTRICT BAR ASSOCIATION, THALASSERY TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BAR COUNCIL. EXHIBIT-P5. TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 13.9.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE INFORMATION OFFICER OF BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA. EXHIBIT-P6. TRUE COY OF THE REPLY DATED 4.10.2010 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P7. TRUE COPY OF THE DEFECT MEMO DATED 4.5.2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P8. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.12.2010 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND CHAIRMAN OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).27181/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 20th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the wife of late Sri.M.Janardhanan who was an advocate of Thalassry Bar. Janardhanan was a member of the Welfare Fund administered by the fourth respondent. He expired on 2.8.2009. In this writ petition, it is averred that the third respondent, the brother of the deceased, has been nominated as the nominee in the Welfare Fund and that the third respondent has not so far made any application for disbursement of the dues under the fourth respondent. It is stated that being the wife and the legal heir of the deceased, petitioner made Ext.P3 application for disbursement of benefits from the Fund and that the same was rejected by the fourth respondent as per Ext.P7, stating that the application shall be duly filled and signed by the nominee. It was there upon that this writ petition was filed, contending that the petitioner and her son were entitled to be disbursed the benefits from the fourth respondent. 2. In the nature of the allegations raised, notice was issued and the third respondent has entered appearance. The third respondent confirms the status of the petitioner as the wife of the W.P.(C).27181/11 2 deceased. According to the third respondent, though he has been nominated by the deceased, still having regard to the nature of the allegations that were made against him, he does not intend to make any application for disbursement of the benefits from the Welfare Fund. 3. Now that the third respondent has made his stand clear that he does not intend to apply for disbursement of the benefits from the Welfare Fund, that cannot result in a situation where the legal heirs of the deceased are deprived of the benefits. In such circumstances I see no reason why the petitioner and her son should not be entitled to make an application to the fourth respondent for disbursement of the Welfare Fund benefits on account of the death of Sri.Janardhanan. 4. In the above view of the matter, I direct that the fourth respondent will reconsider Ext.P3 application made by the petitioner and pass orders in the matter afresh. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs