Surendra Kumar Gupta vs Administrator General and Official Trustee and Another

Ravi S. Dhavan, J.—This Court is very firm in its view that it should not seem to be issuing a writ on this petition because if it does, it will have disastrous consequences in another jurisdiction of the High Court known as the Original Jurisdiction, also known as the Company, Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction. If the Court were to issue a writ on this petition, it would cramp the style of the functioning of the Original Jurisdiction and this must never happen.

This writ petition is truly misplaced and it should not have been filed. The Court also notices that at the time when it was filed no notice was issued to the Administrator General and Official Trustee, U.P., Allahabad, an authority who functions under the Administrator General Act, 1963. The Administrator General, U.P., is present in Court and upon verifying from his office, has submitted that notice of this petition was not served on his office prior to the petition being moved or any stage thereafter. This implies that an ad interim order was obtained on this petition and this order has been effective for eleven years without the party against whom it was operating not having been served with notice on this petition. This petition could not be moved without notice, after all the Administrator General and the Official Trustee partakes the attributes of a State as he is a functionary under an Act of Parliament.

The Petitioner applies for a writ of certiorari to obtain an order that the ad interim directions of tire Court so issued on 14 October, 1985 be made absolute. The Administrator General, U.P., under the Act, aforesaid, granted letters of administration to an heir. The letters of administration were granted on 3rd October, 1985, Annexure-6 lo the writ petition. The contention In the writ petition is that the order of the Administrator General, U.P., is incorrect and, further, beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction. Thus, a writ of certiorari is sought to quash the order by which letters of administration were granted by the Administrator General on the application of Bipin Kumar Agarwal, Respondent No. 2. The Petitioner applied to the Administrator General objecting to the grant of letters of administration to Bipin Kumar Agarwal. Broadly, the objections were, to the effect, that the Petitioner had a charge on the estate of the deceased, Radhey Shyam Agarwal. The Petitioner claimed as a creditor of late Bipin Kumar Agarwal and, thus, on the estate. He explained his credit thus:

(a) a right to receive a sum of Rs. 1,500.00 per month with effect from 24 October, 1975 to 13.11.1980 together with interest at the rate of 2 per cent per month. The amount quantified in his objections was referred to as Rs. 91.000.00 as principal and interest at Rs. 54,600.00. The aggregate standing at Rs. 1,45,600.00;

(b) another debt, as a charge assigned in favour of the Petitioner being a sum of Rs. 30,000.00 carrying an interest at the rate of 2 per cent per month being half of the valuation of the Petitioner''s interest in the property known as Ajanta Cinema. The market value of which was given at Rs. 30 lakhs;

(c) another amount of Rs. 30,000.00 per month with effect from 14 November, 1980 to 3 May, 1985 standing at Rs. 16,20,000.00;

(d) another sum of Rs. 17,65,600.00.

Submissions were made that the will left by the deceased was forged. The prayers in the objections before the Administrator General were (a) that the Administrator General may take immediate steps by assuming administration of the estate himself and in the alternative (b) granting a certificate in favour of the Petitioner as a creditor. The certificate sought is the letters of administration.

Before the Court, it is submitted that the Administrator General''s pecuniary jurisdiction had been overshot, regard being had Lo the size of the estate. It is on record by the Petitioner himself in Paragraph 11 of the writ petition that the application which was filed by Bipin Kumar Agarwal before the Administrator General, while seeking letters of administration, (he assets were valued in reference to eight items and were given as below:

Degree in Suit No. 317 of 1978 Sri. Radhey Shyam Agarwal v. Judge Small Causes Court. Allahabad for Rs, 2682.35 p with up-to-date Interest and expenses etc.

Rs. 2, 682.35

Annuity Deposit Certificate SI. No. 01921 dated 21.3.72 for Rs. 1,600 present balance due is Rs. 200 payable by State Bank of lndia, Allahabad.

200.00

Annuity Deposit Certificate No. 019022 dated 21.3.72 for Rs. 1,400. At present balance due is Rs. 175.

175.00

Annuity Deposit Certificate No. 019023 dated 21.3.72 for Rs. 1,240. At present balance due is Rs. 155 payable by State Bank of India Allahabad.

155.00

Total 530.00

Allahabad Bank Allahabad City Savings Bank Account No. 4407, Rs. 1481.96 with up-to-date Interest.

1481.96

50 ordinary shares each of Rs. 10 of Hindustan Motors Ltd., Calcutta bearing No. 4485451 to 4485300.

500.00

13 ordinary shares each of Rs. 10 of Hindustan Motors Ltd. Calcutta bearing No. 12630369 to 12630381.

130.00

16 Ordinary shares of Rs. 10 each of Hindustan Motors Ltd. Calcutta bearing No. 9953840 to 9953855.

160.00

Total: Rs. 5,484.31

(with up-to-date interest and expenses etc.)

The valuation of the assets disclosed by Bipin Kumar Agarwal was given at Rs. 5,484.31. It is not the contention of the Petitioner that the valuation on the assets as given to the Administrator General was incorrect. What the Petitioner contends is that if the entire estate were to be taken, the contingent liability and valuation of the estate would be beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Administrator General. This is best fortified by the fact that if the valuation as given to the Administrator General is incorrect, then the Petitioner would have been applying u/s 33 of the Act to seek revocation of the certificate granted by the Administrator General that letters of administration had been obtained by Bipin Kumar Agarwal by fraud or misrepresentation or, for that matter, the certificate was obtained by means of an untrue allegation, in effect, in ignorance or inadvertently. But, this is not the contention of the Petitioner. He did not move an application u/s 33 before the Administrator General seeking revocation of the certificate. The Petitioner avoided this situation. What the Petitioner told the Administrator General in his objections is that he has a charge on the estate and, thus, he prayed that he is a creditor on the estate and the Administrator General should take charge of the estate himself falling which grant letters of administration to the Petitioner.

The Petitioner''s prayer before the Administrator General was not that the latter should step in to take charge of the estate of the deceased on being prima facie satisfied, that the estate in context was without an heir.

In such an eventuality, the Administrator General could apply to the High Court to seek letters of administration and the consequential obligation to secure possession of" the estate and be accountable to the High Court. The Administrator General, in such circumstances, could also be called by the High Court to take charge of the estate. The estate to which the Petitioner refers is certainly not without heirs or next-of-kin. The contention of the Petitioner that if the Administrator General would not seek letters of administration, the Petitioner should be given the grant is misconceived. The Petitioner had no business to suggest this prayer lo the Administrator General, as on the Petitioner''s showing, the asserted charge on the estate had exceeded Rs. 50,000.00. The figure is the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Administrator General. Thus, the question of granting letters of administration to the Petitioner on tire valuation of an estate which exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Administrator General does not arise.

What the Petitioner may have done, but did not do, was to apply to the High Court in its Original Jurisdiction, the Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction, under Chapter XXX, Rule 20 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. The Rule so provides that a letter of administration may be sought by a creditor. The Petitioner avoided this forum.

Of the balance which remains of the avenues which were available to the Petitioner, but he did not resort to, this Court is of the opinion that this writ petition was an abuse of the process of the Court on two grounds, firstly, the petition was filed without serving notice on the Administrator General. Secondly, the Petitioner was seeking letters of administration, in so far as he is concerned, of charge of his credit on the estate, which is over Rs. 50,000.00. Even if the Administrator General had wanted to grant letters of administration to the Petitioner in law, he could not do so.

If the Court were to make a mistake to grant a writ of certiorari on this writ petition, it would be interfering with the jurisdiction of the High Court, the Original Jurisdiction, which deals with Company, Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction. The court has no intention in interfering with this jurisdiction as it will amount to affecting this jurisdiction by a prerogative writ within the Court. This is not possible.

As the Court is satisfied that by filing this writ petition, the process of the Court was abused, the details of which have been given in this Order, the Petitioner must pay cost to the two Respondent, arrayed. The cost will stand at Rs. 2,000.00 to be paid to the Administrator General and Official Trustee, U.P., Allahabad and Rs. 2,000.00 will be paid to the Respondent No. 2, Bipin Kumar Agarwal, which costs shall be paid to these Respondent within two months from today by depositing the same with the Registrar, High Court.

The petition is dismissed with costs, as above.

The interim orders dated 14.10.1985 and 21.2.1986 are discharged.