Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.:— The Court:- The petitioners in this WP under art.226 dated September 6, 2007 are seeking a mandamus commanding the respondents as follows:
“(i) Deliver to your Petitioners a full inventory of the goods and articles they removed from the said Locker No. 209 with Key No. 174 referred to at paragraph 3 above.
(ii) Deliver to your Petitioners the entire contents of the said Locker No. 209 with Key No. 174 referred to at paragraph 3 above”.
The case of the petitioners is this. Their parents jointly hired the locker in question. After their father's death their mother continued to hold the locker as the sole hirer till July 27, 1994, when she died. They visited the bank on April 27, 2007, when they learnt that for default on rent the bank had forced the locker and removed the contents thereof. Being the deceased locker hirer's children, they are entitled to the removed contents.
The bank has filed an opposition dated December 11, 2007 stating its case and justifying its action. With the opposition it has produced a copy of the inventory that was prepared on August 29, 2006 listing the contents which were found in the locker.
Advocate for the petitioners submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case the bank forcing the locker was under an obligation to give the contents of the locker to the petitioners who are the children of the deceased locker hirer.
Advocate for bank has submitted that in the absence of a succession certificate or letters of administration issued by the appropriate Court, the bank cannot give the petitioners the contents of the locker, for the bank is unable to decide whether the petitioners are the children of the deceased locker hirer.
In my opinion, the bank has rightly said that it is not empowered to decide whether the petitioners as the children of the deceased locker hirer. Whether the petitioners are the only persons entitled to get the contents of the locker is not to be decided by the Writ Court under art.226 I am, therefore, of the view that they are not entitled to a mandamus.
For these reasons, I dismiss the WP making it clear that nothing herein shall prevent the petitioners from approaching the bank for inspection of the things for ascertaining value thereof, so that they may approach the appropriate Court seeking a succession certificate or letters of administration. No costs. Certified xerox.