HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. – 24
Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. – 26064 of 2019
Petitioner :- Satish Kumar Bharati
Respondent :- Addl. Dist. Judge Room No. 3 Pratapgarh
Counsel for Petitioner :- Parashu Ram Kanaujia,Rakesh Kumar
Hon’ble Manish Mathur,J.
Heard Sri Parashu Ram Kanaujia learned counsel for petitioner. The sole respondent being the court concerned is unrepresented.
The petition has been filed seeking a direction to the court concerned to release of deposited funds of petitioner’s father within stipulated time frame. Earlier this court on 20th September, 2019 had passed the following order:-
“1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. This petition has been filed praying for a direction direction to the Additional District Judge, Room no.3, Pratapgarh to decide Misc. Case No.201 of 2008 (Satish Kumar and others vs. Har Khas Aam) filed by the petitioner for release of the deposited funds of his father within a stipulated time period.
3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the father of the petitioner Late Amar Nath Bharti was posted in U.P. Police Department as Station House Officer when he was murdered on 18.12.1985. The mother of the petitioner had already died in the life time of his father. At the time of murder of petitioner’s father, the petitioner was aged about 10 years and his real brother Sanjay Kumar was aged about 7 years and his two sisters, namely, Pratibha Devi and Neelam Devi were aged about 5 years and 3 years respectively. The real uncle of the petitioner Ram Raj Bharti moved an application under Section 8 of the Guardian and SectionWards Act before the Court of District Judge, Pratapgarh to appoint him as Guardian and legal heirs of the deceased Amar Nath Bharti on 21.1.1986. The said case was got registered as Misc. Non Related Case no.14 of 1986 (Ram Raj Bharti vs. Har Khas). Notices were issued to close relatives of the deceased, who appeared before the court and filed their no objection. The District Judge, Pratapgarh on 2.5.1986 appointed Ram Raj Bharti as guardian of the minors, but directed that the guardian shall not be entitled to withdraw the amount of funds of Late Amar Nath Bharti without the permission of the court. Thereafter, Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur took necessary action in the matter. The District Judge, Pratapgarh passed an order on 16.9.1987 to seal Rs.99,000/-, which was received in maturity of Indira Vikas Patra. Later on, certain amount receipts on maturity of Kisan Vikas Patra was also deposited.
4. The Central Nazir reported the deposit of money and later on, when the petitioner attained majority, a application was filed for release of money. However, when a report was submitted, it came out that the file had been misplaced. The Sadar Munsarim after repeated request submitted a report on 10.8.2015 that there was no order for release of amount in favour of the legal heirs of Late Amar Nath Bharti.
5. It has been submitted that from the date of deposit of amount, several years have passed and the petitioner and his siblings have all attained majority, nothing has been done in the matter. Therefore, a direction be issued to the Additional District Judge to pass appropriate orders on the application for release of money.
6. Let a report be submitted by the District Judge, Pratapgarh, seeking an explanation from the Additional District Judge, Room no.3, Pratapgarh, with regard to pendency of the application of the petitioner an his siblings for release of money, which was initially deposited for the benefit of legal heirs of Late Amar Nath Bharti, who were at that time minors.
7. The Registry shall send a copy of this order to the District Judge, Pratapgarh, who shall submit a report to this Court by 21.10.2019.
8. List on 21.10.2019.”
In pursuance of aforesaid directions, a report had been called for and explanation sought from the court concerned which was provided on 10th October, 2019 indicating the reasons for pendency of the application.
The District Judge Pratapgarh vide report dated 12th October, 2019 has indicated that the application is still pending due to consequential change/transfer of officers as also the fact that the court concerned had fallen vacant. The District Judge has also indicated that in order to expedite disposal of the case, it has been transferred to the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Pratapgarh.
In view of aforesaid report, it is apparent that steps with regard to early disposal of the application and suit has already been taken at the appropriate level.
Considering the aforesaid facts, the court concerned where M.N.R. No. 201/2008 (Satish Kumar versus Har khas Aam) i.e. Court of Additional District Session Judge, Court No.1, Pratapgarh is directed to decide the aforesaid case within a period of six weeks from the date a copy of this order is placed on record.
With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 22.10.2019