AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arindam Sinha, J
Mr. Sahoo, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner. He submits, his client had applied for legal heir certificates on her parents-in-law having had passed away. By print out of information obtained online being annexures 7 and 7/1, the applications stood informed on status as rejected. There is no way of knowing as to why they were rejected since, his client complied with all requisites in applying online and said annexures corroborate that status of the application were completed.
Ms. Pattanayak, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State and submits, she will obtain instruction and file counter on reasons for rejection.
Law stands declared that the order made cannot be subsequently supplemented by reasons. The Supreme Court declared the law in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, reported in AIR 1978 SC 851.
Rejection of petitioner’s application are set aside and quashed. Opposite party no.1 is directed to revisit the applications and either issue the certificates or inform petitioner reasons, as to why they or one of them cannot be issued. Either way said opposite party shall do so within three weeks of communication.
The writ petition is disposed of.
……………………