Orissa High Court

Jhunu Choudhury vs The Zonal Manager on 8 September, 2021

             ORISSA HIGH COURT : C U T T A C K

                      W.P.(C) No.15491 of 2021

                 An application under Article 226 of
                  the Constitution of India, 1950


Jhunu Choudhury                          : Petitioner


                           -Versus-


The Zonal Manager,                       : Opposite Parties
Bank of India& Ors.


For Petitioner                        : M/s. P.K. Panda


For Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2          : M/s.T. Sahu,
                                            S. Mishra

For Opposite Party Nos.3 to 5         : M/s. S.K. Jethy



CORAM :
JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH

Date of hearing:24.08.2021:: Date of Judgment : 8.09.2021

1.

This writ petition is filed seeking a direction in the

nature of mandamus against the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2

to settle the claim on behalf of the deceased husband of the

// 2 //

Petitioner and release the amount lying in the Account

No.515212100005354 in favour of the Petitioner without

insisting for production of succession certificate.

2. Factual background involved in the case is that late

Rajendra Prasad Choudhury the husband of the Petitioner

and the father of the Opposite Party Nos.3 to 5 being two

sons and one daughter was serving as a Forest Guard.

Deceased joined the post of Forest Guard on 27.06.1972.

On attaining the age of superannuation the husband of the

Petitioner got superannuated on 31.07.2003. Being a

Government employee he was entitled to pension w.e.f.

1.08.2003, which is issued by way of Pension Payment

Order vide PPO No.347697 dated 17.12.2004. Pension

payment order through clause 12 therein makes the

Petitioner entitled to family pension in case of death of the

husband. The husband of the Petitioner for smooth running

of pension account opened an account under the S.B.

Pension Scheme in the Bank of India, Konisi Branch in the

District of Ganjam bearing A/c. No.515212100005354. The

Petitioner filed relevant portion of pass book to establish her

// 3 //

case. Pleadings further reveal that the husband of the

Petitioner had some agricultural land under the Mouza-

Sihala in the District of Ganjam. During his survival, the

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. acquired some land in the

Mouza-Sihala for construction of Petro Chemical Project

near Village Sihala. In the process there was acquisition of

some agricultural land belonging to the family of the

Petitioner and for which compensation being assessed two

demand drafts were drawn in favour of the husband of the

petitioner during his survival and he had deposited all such

amount in the above bank account on 24.07.2020. The

husband of the Petitioner passed away leaving behind the

present Petitioner, two sons and one daughter as the legal

heirs. It is pleaded that in the process the family obtained

the death certificate of the deceased on 1.09.2020 and

thereafter the Petitioner approached the Branch Manager

i.e. Opposite Party No.2 for getting the amount under

deposit. It is, on receipt of such request along with death

certificate the Branch Manager requested the Tahasildar,

Kukudakhandi, Ganjam for submission of a report

// 4 //

concerning details of the legal heirs of late Rajendra Prasad

Choudhury. Pleadings further disclose that basing on such

request of the Bank authority the Tahasildar,

Kukudakhandi submitted his report vide Annexure-4

indicating therein that the Petitioner and the Opposite Party

Nos.3 to 5 are the surviving legal heirs of late Rajendra

Prasad Choudhury. After receipt of such report of the

Tahasildar and being informed the Petitioner along with

Opposite Party Nos.3 to 5 requested the Branch Manager of

the Bank of India-Opposite Party No.2 for payment of

balance amount lying in the account involved herein in

favour of the Petitioner. The Petitioner and the Opposite

Party Nos.3 to 5 applied in proper format also enclosing

therein the required documents in addition to such claim.

The Petitioner also submitted an affidavit being sworn

jointly by the Petitioner with the Opposite Party Nos.3 to 5

disclosing therein that the other members of the Family

have no objection, in the event the balance amount is

settled in favour of the Petitioner. This apart, the Petitioner

and the Opposite Party Nos.3 to 5 also executed an

// 5 //

indemnity bond undertaking therein that they will

indemnify the Bank against all losses that may be caused to

it as a result of payment of the amount involved to the legal

heirs. The Opposite Party Nos.3 to 5 also filed an affidavit

indicating therein that they have no objection whatsoever

amount involved herein is released in favour of their mother

i.e. the present Petitioner and in addition to such affidavit

the Opposite Party Nos.3 to 5 also filed a letter of authority

also authorizing the mother to receive such amount. In

response to the above approach of the Opposite Party Nos.3

to 5, the Opposite Party No.2 by its letter dtd.7.04.2021

intimated the Petitioner and the Opposite Party Nos.3 to 5

for submission of succession certificate in order to settle the

claim involved herein.

3. On the premises that the demand of the Opposite

Party No.2 remains contrary to their own policy i.e. Model

Operational Procedure (hereinafter in short be reflected as

'MOP'), the Petitioner taking reference to some of the

provisions in the MOP, claimed that the Bank Authorities

are not justified in asking for succession certificate.

// 6 //

4. To the contrary the Bank authorities filing

counter affidavit while not disputing the development taken

place in the meantime that on the asking of the Branch

Manager there has been an inquiry at the level of the

Tahasildar and a report has surfaced accordingly and

further there has been an application at the instance of the

Petitioner with support of an affidavit, indemnity Bond and

letter of undertaking in the matter of release of the amount

involved in favour of the Petitioner, but through the counter

affidavit attempted to justify the action of the Opposite Party

No.2 in asking succession certificate for release of amount

lying in the Bank Account involved herein. The Opposite

Party Nos.1 & 2 taking reliance of the provision at clause

20.2 of the R.B.I. Master Circular on customer service in the

Bank issued on 1.07.2009, contended that for the

settlement claim made in respect of the deceased depositor

the provision at Section 45-ZA to 45-ZF of the Banking

Regulation Act, 1949 and the Banking Companies

(Nomination) Rules, 1985 should be adhered to. Taking

reference to the Clause 20.2 it is claimed that here the Bank

// 7 //

has been authorized to fix minimum threshold limit for the

balance in the account of the deceased depositor up to

which claim in respect of the deceased depositor could be

settled without insisting production of any document other

than a letter of indemnity. It is, in the premises, the

Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 claimed that the Bank has come-

out with a policy on MOP for settlement of claim in respect

of the deceased depositor account and while claiming so the

Petitioner did not file the whole MOP and only filed that part

of the MOP; which supports her case. Bringing the further

disclosures in the MOP more particularly through clause 6.4

the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 contended that for the MOP

the Bank has introduced requirement of succession

certificate for settlement of claim; where the claim is more

than rupees forty lakh and further also in the case where

there exists dispute between the legal heirs / claimants even

if the claim amount is within the threshold amount. It is, for

the above conditions in the MOP, the Opposite Party Nos.1

& 2 objected the relief claimed by the Petitioner and thus

prayed for rejection of the writ petition.

// 8 //

5. In the above background of the matter Mr. Panda,

learned counsel for the Petitioner drawing the attention of

this Court to the disclosures through the materials like

death certificate, legal heir certificate, format of application,

affidavit of Petitioner with Opposite Party Nos.3 to 5, the

report of the Tahasildar submitted pursuant to the asking of

the Opposite Party No.2, the indemnity bond and lastly the

letter of authority, contended that for the existence of all

such materials indicated hereinabove there virtually

remains no dispute that the Petitioner and the Opposite

Party Nos.3 to 5 are the only legal heirs to the estate of the

deceased lying in the Bank. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for

the Petitioner also while not disputing the allegation of the

Bank that the condition at clause 3.1 is not all the condition

to consider the case involved herein, taking reference to

Clause 6.4. in the MOP and the clause 20.2 of the MOP

referred to by the Bank Authorities contended that with the

material support involving the claim of the Petitioner there

is virtually no dispute that firstly the claimants are the only

// 9 //

legal heirs, secondly the Opposite Party Nos.3 to 5 have no

objection in the event of release of proceeds lying in the

Bank account in favour of the Petitioner and in the

circumstance Mr. Panda, learned counsel submitted that

there should not be any insistence of production of

succession certificate as claimed by the Opposite Party

Nos.1 & 2. On the premises that the pandemic situation for

the COVID-19 reason made the Courts of the whole country

paralyzed to undertake any final exercise, Mr. Panda,

learned counsel also contended that in the given situation it

is difficulty on the part of the customers to get a succession

certificate, which can only be granted in the finality of such

proceedings. To support his stand, Mr. Panda, learned

counsel for the Petitioner also relied on some decisions of

different Courts i.e. (1) in the case of Ram Chakravarty

Vrs. Manager, Punjab National Bank : AIR 1991 (CAL)

128, (2) in the case of Sharda Chopra & Ors. Vrs. State

Bank of India : AIR 1997 (M.P) 196, (3) in the case of

Branch Manager, State Bank of India Vrs. Satyaban

Pothal & Ors. : 1988 (II) OLR 533, (4) in the case of Kinkar

// 10 //

Santananda Sanyasi Vrs. State Bank of India : AIR

2000 (O) 114, (5) in the case of Kesoram Industries and

Cotton Mills Ltd. Vrs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax

(Central) Calcuta : AIR 1966 (SC) 1370, (6) in the case of

Sun Export Corporation, Bombay Vrs. Collector of

Customs : (1997) 6 SCC 564, (7) in the case of

Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai Vrs. M/s.

Dillip Kumar and Company and Ors. : (2018) 9 SCC 1

(Civil Appeal No.3327 of 2007 decided on 30th July, 2018).

6. Taking this Court to the aforesaid decisions

Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner also claimed

that for the settled position of law there may not be any

insistence on production of the succession certificate for

release of the amount lying in the account involved.

Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner also contended

that for there is already delay in release of the entitlements

in favour of the Petitioner, there is sufficient harassment to

the beneficiaries and such amount is illegally retained by

the Bank.

// 11 //

7. In his opposition, Mr. T. Sahu, learned counsel

for the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 taking this Court to the

provisions in the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 hereinafter

in short be referred to as "the Act, 1949"; more particularly

to the provisions at Section 45-Z clause 3.1.1 in the MOP 18

and clause 6.4 in MOP-20 contended that for there is clear

restriction in the MOP objecting the claim of the Petitioner,

there cannot be release of a huge amount unless the

succession certificate is produced. To support his case Mr.

Sahu, learned counsel also relied on two decisions i.e. in the

case of K. Srinivasu Vrs. A.P. Co-Operative Bank Ltd. :

2006(1) ALD 382, 2005 (0) Supreme (AP) 972, in the case of

Shanti Prasad Jain Vrs. The Director of Enforcement &

Anr. : 1962 (0) AIR (SC) 1764. It is, in the circumstance, Mr.

Sahu, learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the writ

petition.

8. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this

Court finds, undisputed facts remain, there is death of the

account holder namely Rajendra Prasad Choudhury and the

// 12 //

account involved was being maintained by the deceased.

Such account is also accommodated with pensionary

benefits of the deceased, which disclosed, the Petitioner

being the wife of the deceased, is eligible for family pension

in case of death of the deceased as also established through

the Clause 12 of the Act, 1949. Further there is also filing of

appropriate format with necessary documents such as

death certificate, legal heir certificate, affidavit of other

family members i.e. Opposite Party Nos.3 to 5, for release of

the amount lying with the deceased account. Further there

is also filing of an independent affidavit by the Opposite

Party Nos.3 to 5 indicating their "No objection" for release of

such amount in favour of the Petitioner. This apart, there is

also existence of indemnity bond as required by the Bank

and also a letter of authority duly executed by the Opposite

Party Nos.3 to 5. Since both the parties rely on certain

provisions of the MOP, this Court here takes note of the

provisions dealing with release of amount lying in the

deceased account in absence of nomination facilities. This

Court here takes note of the provision at clause 3.1.1 of the

// 13 //

MOP March, 2018 being relied on by the Petitioner as

appearing at page 44 of the brief, which reads as hereunder:

"3.1.1. Savings Account/ Current Account: With Nomination:

The balance amount will be paid to the nominee on verification of nominee's identity (such as PAN Card, Election ID Card, Aadhaar Card, MANREGA Card, Passport, Driving License, etc.) and proof of death of depositor. Without Nomination:

The balance amount will be paid to the legal heir(s) (or any one of them as mandated by all of the legal heirs) on verification of the authority of the legal heir(s) and proof of death of depositor."

This provision undoubtedly did not restrict

release of amount involved even without nomination.

9. This Court here also takes into account the

provision at clause 6.4. of the MOP August, 2020 being

relied on by the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2, which reads as

follows:

"6.4 Settlement of claims based on legal representation:

               a) Legal    representation     by    way  of
                  succession      certificate    letter  of

administration Probate. etc is must for settlement of deceased claim where claim amount is more than the threshold limit of Rs.40 lakh and also in cases of dispute between the legal heirs/ claimants even if the claim amount is within the threshold amount.

// 14 //

b) Claimants have to submit duly filled application form as per Annexure 4 of the policy along with Death Certificate KYC documents of the claimants and legal representation by way of Court order succession certificate letter of administration, probate etc.

c) When legal representation (i.e. Probated Will or a Succession Certificate or a Letter of Administration) or other legal representation is issued by a competent court in India and produced by the claimants, the branch shall make the payment in terms of legal representation after examining and satisfying that i. Legal representation produced by the claimants should relate to the account(s) of the deceased.

ii. Particulars of the amounts payable by the Bank to the deceased are correctly mentioned or shown in the legal representation (Succession Certificate / Probate/ Letter of Administration, etc.) on the strength of which payment is desired to be made to the claimants.

iii. The identity of holder(s) of grant of legal representation should be proved to the satisfaction of the Bank Officials.

iv. The legal representation (grant) should be produced in Original (usually) or True Certified Copy obtained from the Court. A photocopy, if produced by the holder(s), should not be considered and claimants should be advised to produce Original or True Certified Copy of legal representation issued from court.

// 15 //

d) Genuineness of Legal representation must be ascertained through Bank Panel Advocate through a certificate inter alia incorporating that verification of Court order is carried out correctly all necessary legal precautions have been observed and payment towards deceased claim to the holders will have valid discharge of Bank's liability for the deceased depositor account(s).

e) If the deceased claim amount is more than Rupees two crore, vetting of the legal representation should be carried out by one more Bank Panel Advocate.

f) Grant of legal representation issued by any Court outside India should not be entertained and a proper grant from a competent court in India should be insisted fro.

g) Branch Manger /Designated Official of Deposit Administration and Services Department of Branch (in scale IV and above Branches) can settle the claim subject to complying with the guidelines of exhibit at a to f of Para 6.4 above.

h) Any will without probate should not be acted upon and no payment should be made on the strength of the will only to the executor(s) until a probate / letter of administration with will attached has been obtained from Competent Court.

i) In cases whether the deceased account holder has made a will but the executors of the will do not intend to obtain the probate and request the Bank to pay the balance against indemnity letter (upto the threshold limit) all the legal heirs of the deceased (as in case intestacy) and all the legatees / beneficiaries as per will

// 16 //

should also give their written consent/ NOC and join the indemnity in addition to the executors."

10. For the reference of Clause 20.2 of the R.B.I.

instruction dated 1.07.2009 being referred to by Mr. Tuna

Sahoo, learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2,

this Court also takes into account the clause 20.2 which

reads as hereunder:

"20.2. Accounts without the survivor/ nominee clause:

In case where the deceased depositor had not made any nomination or for the accounts other than those styled as either or survivor (such as single or jointly operated accounts) Banks are required to adopt a simplified procedure for repayment to legal heirs of the depositor keeping in view the imperative need to avoid inconvenience and undue hardship to the common person. In this context, banks may, keeping in view their risk management systems, fix a minimum threshold limit, for the balance in the account of the deceased depositors, up to which claims in respect of the deceased depositors could be settled without insisting production of any documentation other than a letter of indemnity."

11. It is, on reading of the provision at Clause 20.2 of

the R.B.I. instruction, this Court finds, while it has

// 17 //

prescribed for settlement of claim in respect of the deceased

depositor and simplification of procedure, provision of the

Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the Bank should adhere to

the provisions at Section 45-ZA to 2F of the Banking

Regulation Act, 1949 and the Banking Compensation

Nomination Rules, 1985. Similarly, looking to the Clause

20.2 as quoted hereinabove, this Court finds, through this

provision the Banks have been asked to adopt a simplified

procedure for repayment to legal heirs of the depositors

therein and also advisory has been issued asking the Banks

to keep in view their risk engagement system by fixing a

minimum threshold limit for the balance in the account, up

to which could be settled without even insisting production

of any documentation other than a letter of indemnity. The

MOP-18 and MOP-20 are such outcomes. There should not

be any doubt that the GODs/MOPs are brought for the

request of the Reserve Bank of India to the Banking

Institutions to come with prescriptions in the matter of

release of the amount involving Bank Accounts. MOP-18

while remaining in operation, MOP-20 has come into force.

// 18 //

MOP-18 when prescribed, balance amount will be paid to

the legal heirs or any one of them as mandated by all the

legal heirs upon simple verification of the authority and

filing of proof of death of depositors, there is no difficulty in

releasing the balance amount in favour of the Petitioner as

there is already available of necessary documents and a

mandate of legal heirs authorizing the Petitioner to receive

such amount on their behalf.

12. Now coming to the introduction of MOPs, this

Court finds, there is clear prescription for releasing upto

rupees forty lakh from the deceased depositor account

without even insisting for the Court order by way of

succession certificate or letter of administration etc. in

favour of the legal heirs. Through this MOP there is a cap of

detention of the amount over rupees forty lakh and this

amount shall be released on production of succession

certificate. On reading through the clause 6.4 this Court

finds, this clause makes it mandatory for production of a

succession certificate and/or letter of administration; where

the claim amount is more than the threshold limit of rupees

// 19 //

forty lakh. This Court here finds, this MOPs are the outcome

of R.B.I. instruction dated 1.07.2009. Thus these

instructions at best can be termed as instruction/

guidelines, but cannot be treated to have any statutory

force. Statute operated in the field remains the Banking

Regulation Act, 1949.

13. Now coming to the MOP through the condition at

clause 6.4 insisting for production of succession certificate

or letter of administration / probate for release of the

amount beyond rupees forty lakhs from the deceased

account, this Court here finds, death of the deceased is not

being disputed as supported through a death certificate.

That came to existence for the legal heir certificate

indicating the name of the Petitioner as well as the Opposite

Party Nos.3 to 5. Further the report of the Tahasildar since

based on a request of the Bank authorities and the

Tahasildar concerned being the competent authority under

the Miscellaneous Certificate Rules have certified that the

Petitioner and the Opposite Party Nos.3 to 5 are the only

legal heirs of the deceased and no other legal heirs are there

// 20 //

at Village-Sihala. Details of the deceased family members

remains proved. To add to this, there is affidavit of all the

remaining four members of the Family certifying therein

that they being the only legal heirs, are entitled to succeed

to the estate of the deceased and it further appears, an

indemnity bond is also produced by the Opposite Party

Nos.3 to 5. A letter of authorization filed by the Opposite

Party Nos.3 to 5 clearly discloses that the Opposite Party

Nos.3 to 5 have no objection, if the amount lying in the

account of the deceased depositor is released in favour of

their mother Smt. Jhunu Choudhury-the Petitioner. This

apart, for the affidavit being accompanied with such letter of

authority, there remains no issue that the claim involved

herein is a composite claim of all the legal heirs authorizing

the Petitioner to get the amount lying with the account of

the deceased husband of the Petitioner. The Bank not being

the disputant, has no authority to retain the amount lying

in such account except releasing such amount in favour of

the mother of the Opposite Party Nos.3 to 5. For there is

// 21 //

inordinate delay the Petitioner be entitled to interest

minimum @6% per annum allthrough.

14. While doing so, this Court also takes into account

the decisions relied on by both the parties. First, coming to

take a decision on the citations cited by Mr. Sahu, learned

counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 vide 1962 AIR SC

1764, this Court finds, for the factual difference herein, the

citations cited at the instance of the Opposite Party Nos.1 &

2 have no application to the case at hand. This Court here

looking to the decision vide 2006 (1) ALD 382 also finds,

since the claim involved therein was made by the sole legal

heir and the Bank was insisting for production of

succession certificate for release of the amount, finally the

Hon'ble Court through the said decision while observing

that asking of such certificate may not be unreasonable and

unwarranted, but however, considering that there is no

dispute by the legal heirs, remitted the matter finally to

consider the case of the claimant therein on the basis of the

legal heir certificate. This decision rather supports the case

// 22 //

of the Petitioner as here there is also no dispute that the

parties involved are all the legal representatives.

15. Taking into account the decisions cited by the

Petitioner, this Court from the decision in the case of

Branch Manager, State Bank of India Vrs. Satyaban

Pothal and other : 1988 (II) OLR 533, finds as follows:

"..... When the materials on record go to show that the Petitioner has clearly declared that her husband left no other heir and produced certified copy of the judgment to show that the Civil Suit filed against the Petitioner has been dismissed, if any other person has or can have any other claim in respect of the contents of the locker he would have sort it out with the Petitioner. But the Bank is not required to behave like a busy body and develop any headache over the matter. The Bank and its legal advisors ought to have realized that the Bank is expected to adopt an attitude of cooperation and not of a combatant to its customers or their representatives."

Through the above decision considering similarly

nature of claim the Court has come to observe that the

Bank and its legal advisor ought to have realized that the

Bank is expected to adopt an attitude of cooperation and

not a combatant to its customers or their representative.

// 23 //

Similarly, looking to the decision in the case of the

case of Sharda Chopra and Ors. Vrs. State Bank of India

: AIR 1997 (M.P.) 196 in paragraph no.5 towards last para

the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has come to observe as

follows:

"...... It is not necessary to obtain succession certificate and if there is a dispute then the parties can get the matter settled by approaching the Civil Court. The identity of the heirs of Sri S.L. Chopra is fully established. Under the circumstances, direction is given to the Bank to let the present Petitioner have access to the articles lying in the Bank's locker. They would however, furnish a letter of indemnity which would be equal to the value of the articles."

Through the above judgment the High Court of

Madhya Pradesh appears to have observed that there is no

necessity of obtaining succession certificate as identity of

legal heirs is fully established.

In the case of Kinkar Santananda Sanyasi Vrs.

State Bank of India : AIR 2002 (O) 114, the Court even

has come to observe, grant of succession certificate is not

even final adjudication of inter se right between the parties

// 24 //

and parties shall be abided by decision from a competent

Court in case either of the parties approaches. This Court,

therefore, finds, there is no justified clause in asking the

Petitioner to produce Succession Certificate, if it is not

conclusively proved the inter se right between the parties.

On the question as to whether there can be grant of

succession certificate involving release of the amount lying

in a Bank, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Keshoram Industries

and Cotton Mills Ltd. Vrs. Commissioner of Welth Tax

(Central), Calcutta : AIR 1966 SC 1370, came to hold that

since this amount cannot be termed as debt, there cannot

be issuance of succession certificate in the provision of

Section 570 of the Indian Succession Act. This Court here

takes into account the provision at Section 370 of the Act,

1925, which reads as follows:-

"....... Sec.370 of the Indian Succession Act ('Act' in short), 1925 provides that a succession certificate is granted in respect of debt or security.

Though the word 'security' has been defined under Sec.370 (2) of the Act. But neither in the Act, banking Regulation Act, 1949 nor in the Banking Companies (Nomination) Rules, 1985 the word 'debt' has been defined.

// 25 //

Therefore, the dictionary meaning ordinarily understood is to be applied which means 'debt' is a liability owning from one person to another whether in cash or kind, secured or unsecured, whether ascertained or ascertainable arising out of any obligation / express or implied. Keeping in view the above meaning of the debt it can be said that 'debt' is nothing but loan. The amount deposited in the deceased account since is not coming under the definition and meaning of debt, therefore, in view of the provision U/s.370 of the Act, succession certificate cannot be issued by the competent Court."

This Court here finds, the view of this Court here also

gets support through the above statutory provision as in the

given circumstance there is no scope for applying a

succession certificate.

Similarly, in deciding on the applicability of the clause

3.1.1 of the MOP indicated hereinabove to the case at hand,

this Court finds, in similar situation the Hon'ble Apex Court

in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Imports),

Mumbai Vrs. M/s. Dilip Kumar and Company and others.

: (2018) 9 SCC 1 through paragraph nos.18 therein has

come to observe as follows:

"The purpose of interpretation is essentially to know the intention of the

// 26 //

legislature. Whether the legislature intended to apply the law in a given case; whether the legislature intended to exclude operation of law in a given case; whether the legislature intended to give discretion to enforcing authority or to adjudicating agency to apply the law, are essentially questions to which answers can be sought only by knowing the intention of the legislation. Apart from the general principles of interpretation of statutes, there are certain internal aids and external aids which are tools for interpreting the statutes.

16. For the reasons assigned hereinabove, the

decisions referred to hereinabove have direct application to

the case of the Petitioner. This Court while declaring, asking

of the Bank for a Succession Certificate becomes

unreasonable and remains bad, allowing the writ petition

directs the Opposite Party No.2 to release the amount lying

in the A/c. No.515212100005354 in favour of the Petitioner

in terms of the application of the Petitioner, on the basis of

the affidavit, the indemnity bond involving the amount

involved herein and the letter of authority. Since there is

already delay, the Petitioner will also be entitled to interest

at the rate of 6% per annum all through.