Suramalla Ramulu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
(i) criminal - imprisonment - article 21 of constitution of india and sections 302 and 377 of indian penal code, 1860 - whether state responsible for death of prisoner who died while he was undergoing imprisonment and liable to pay compensation - killing of prisoner while he was in jail resulted in deprivation of his life - jail authorities failed to protect his life thus responsible for his death - in light of precedent laid down by apex court state held responsible for death of prisoner whose life could not be protected while undergoing imprisonment - held, state cannot absolve its responsibility from paying compensation to eligible petitioners. (ii) compensation - father, mother and wife of deceased claimed compensation - no cordial relationship between deceased and his wife - wife still entitled for maintenance from husband - income of deceased cannot be fixed as he was undergoing imprisonment - mother deprived of dependency on her son - held, father not entitled to compensation amount as he was not dependant on son - reasonable compensation to be awarded to wife and mother. - - failure to protect the life of said shankar by the jail authorities, the jail authorities are to be held responsible. when there are allegations against the first petitioner-father by his own son, which fact has not been disputed by the petitioners, i am of the view, the father cannot be considered a person dependent on his own son as there is no love-lost between these two persons. she also, in all probability, has no affection or love towards the first petitioner who is her husband as there is an allegation against the first petitioner and third petitioner by the said shankar about illicit relationship.order1. petitioners seek a mandamus to declare that the respondents are wholly responsible for the death of one s. shankar, a convict undergoing life term in central prison, chanchalguda, hyderabad and consequently direct the respondents to pay a compensation of rs. 2 lakhs to the petitioners. 2. few acts are narrated hereunder for the purpose of appreciating the issues raised in this writ petition. 3. the writ petition is filed by three persons. petitioner no. 1 claims to be the father of the deceased s. shankar, petitioner no. 2 claims to be the mother and petitioner no. 3 claims to be the wife of the deceased s. shankar, who are aged 60, 55 and 30 years respectively. 4. it is the case of the petitioners that said shankar was undergoing imprisonment for life in the central prison, chanchalguda, hyderabad. on 11-8-1992, they received a telegraphic communication from the third respondent who is the superintendent of central prison, chanchalguda jail, hyderabad intimating the expiry of said shankar on 10-8-1992 in the osmania general hospital, hyderabad. the petitioners apprehend that the death of shankar is due to the tortuous acts and cruel treatment meted out to him by the staff of the third respondent, while he was undergoing imprisonment in the central prison. these petitioners claim that while shankar was alive and before he was imprisoned to undergo life sentence, he was working as a coal filler in singareni collieries, earning about rs. 1500/- per month. petitioners further claim that they were solely dependent on the earnings of said shankar. their livelihood is now being deprived on account of untimely death of said shankar. therefore, the petitioners are claiming a compensation of rs. 2 lakhs from the respondents. 5. on behalf of the respondents, a detailed counter has been filed, inter-alia, contending that they are not responsible for the death of shankar. on the contrary, the respondents have taken a specific stand that said shankar was beaten to death by a co-convict one chakali nagendrudu. it is the case of the respondents that on the intervening night of 9/10-8-1992, one of the co-convict by name chakali nagendrudu inflicted injuries to said shankar in barrack no. 4 in which said nagendrudu, deceased shankar and few other were lodged. it is stated that said shankar, negendrudu and two others were unwell and on the basis of the advise of the doctors, all these persons were lodged in barrack no. 4 which is a rest room. it is further stated that on the intervening night of 9/10-8-1992, said chakali nagendrudu inflicted injuries on the body of shankar with the help of a broken wodden piece which was kept in the latrine for cleaning purposes. when the scuffle was going on between chakali nagedrudu and shanker, the other convicts who were also in the said barrack made hue and cry and tried to protect shankar from chakali nagendrudu. on hearing the hue and cry, the staff of the central prison also came running, opened the barrack and separated shankar from chakali nagendrudu and rushed shankar to osmania general hospital and was given some treatment, where he was declared dead by the doctors. in this background, the respondents state that they are not responsible for the death of said shankar. they also deny the allegation that shankar was done to death on account of the tortuous acts of the staff of the central prison. the respondents also disown any responsibility to pay compensation and seek dismissal of the writ petition. 6. in this background, two important questions arise before this court for consideration, viz., 1) whether the state is responsible for the death of said shankar who died while he was undergoing imprisonment for life term and whether the state is liable to pay compensation 2) what is the quantum of compensation that could be awarded to the petitioners 7. there are different versions as regards to the cause of death of said shankar. petitioners claim that the death of shankar was on account of the tortuous acts meted out to him by the staff of the third respondent. on the contrary, the respondents claim that the death of shankar was only on account of the injuries inflicted by co-convict chakali nagendrudu, which fact has not been disputed by the petitioners. however, for the purpose of determining the liability of the state for payment of compensation, i am of the view, the cause of death of shankar while he was serving life term in central prison, need not be gone into in the background of the admitted fact that said shankar died while he was undergoing imprisonment in the central prison, chanchalguda, hyderabad. 8. it has been held by the supreme court in smt. kewal pati v. state of u.p. 1995 (2) scale page 729, even though the death of a prisoner is on account of the acts of a co-convict, yet the prison authorities are not absolved of their responsibility to ensure his life and safety in jail. a prisoner does not cease to have his constitutional right except to the extent he has been deprived of it in accordance with law, as held by the supreme court in francies coralie mullin v. administrator, union territory of delhi air 1981 sc 746. the prisoner is also entitled for protection to his life. since said shankar was killed while he was in jail, it resulted in deprivation of his life contrary to law. his untimely death has deprived these petitioners his company and affection. article 21 of the constitution of india provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure as established by law. in the instant case, the killing of said shankar had taken place while he was in jail, it resulted in deprivation of his life, contrary to law. failure to protect the life of said shankar by the jail authorities, the jail authorities are to be held responsible. therefore, i hold that the jail-authorities are responsible for the death of said shankar. 9. the next question is whether the state could be held responsible to pay compensation for the acts done by its servants in a series of decisions in rudul sah v. state of bihar : 1983crilj1644 , sebastian m. hongray v. union of india : [1984]1scr904 , m. c. mehta v. union of india : [1987]1scr819 , saheli, a women's resource centre v. commissioner of police, delhi : air1990sc513 and smt. nilabati behera alias lalita behera v. state of orissa : 1993crilj2899 the supreme court has categorically held that the state is responsible for the acts committed by is servants. i therefore, hold that in view of the law laid down by the supeme court in the cases cited supra, the state is responsible for the death of shankar whose life could not be protected while he was undergoing imprisonment in central prison, chanchalguda hyderabad and as such, the state cannot absolve its responsibility from paying compensation to the eligible petitioners. 10. question no. 1 is answered accordingly. 11. coming to the second question as to the quantum of compensation that could be directed to be paid by the respondents, it is necessary to examine this aspect with special reference to the dependency, age, earning and other factors which have been placed before this court during the course of arguments. 12. it has been stated in the counter filed by the respondents that the deceased shankar was on earlier occasion imprisoned and was undergoing jail term. while he was undergoing jail term, his wife seems to have given birth to a child which is said to be born through his own father. on hearing this news, shankar got frustrated and developed grudge against his father and wife. after his release from the prison, said shankar seems to have gone to his place and killed the child ruthlessly on account of which he was charged under section 302, of i.p.c. a sessions case was recorded against said shankar in s.c. no. 18/88 and he was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under section 302, i.p.c. and also rigorous imprisonment for five years under section 377 of i.p.c. both sentences to run concurrently. these facts have not been disputed by the petitioners. respondents state that on account of the sentence imposed by the sessions court, adilabad in s.c. no. 18/88, said shankar was undergoing life term in central prison, chanchalguda, hyderbad. 13. it is the case of the petitioners that deceased shankar was an employee of singareni collieries as coal filler earning a monthly wage of rs. 1500/-. but no salary certificate is placed to that effect before this court. it is stated that at the time of his death, shankar was aged about 39 years. according to the respondents, said shankar was sentenced to life imprisonment in s.c. no. 18/88 dated 29-9-1988. admittedly, said shankar died on 10-8-1992. as on the date of his death, he has completed nearly 4 years of jail term. the remaining period of jail term is another 10 years from the date of his death. as on the date of his death, shankar was aged around 39 years. therefore, from 1992 to another 10 years i.e., by 2002, in all probability, said shankar would have served his full term in jail. on his serving the jail term, as indicated the age of said shankar would probably be around 50 years. a man of 50 years old is capable of finding grounds for his livelihood and also feeding his dependents. 14. in motor accident cases, compensation is granted by the tribunals on the basis of determination of dependency, loss of estate, consortium to wife etc. for the purpose of determining the compensation, tribunals are also to take into consideration the age of the person as on the date of the accident and the income being derived by the person as on that date, and to apply relevant multiplier for the said purpose. 15. in case of this nature, awarding compensation for custodial death, courts have been granting lump sum amount on the ground of denial of full life to the deceased and also denial of livelihood to his dependents. 16. in this case, the deceased is said to be a criminal undergoing imprisonment. at the first instance, he was imprisoned and after completing his term, he was freed from the jail. he was again imprisoned on account of the offence committed under section 302 of i.p.c. for killing the child. though the petitioners have claimed that deceased shankar was an employee with singareni collieries and was earning a monthly wage of rs. 1500/-, prudence would not permit this court to assume that singareni collieries would have again accommodated him and given him the same job. however, the possibilities of shankar taking out some avocation for his maintenance and for the maintenance of his dependents are not ruled out. 17. there are three petitioners in this case. first petitioner is the father, second petitioner is the mother and the third petitioner is the wife of the deceased shankar. the allegation that shankar suspected the fedility of his wife having illicit contact with his own father and has given birth to a child which was later on killed by said shankar has not been denied by the petitioners. in this background, can it be assumed that said shankar could have still maintained his father and his wife had he been alive 18. the first petitioner is stated to be 60 years old. when there are allegations against the first petitioner-father by his own son, which fact has not been disputed by the petitioners, i am of the view, the father cannot be considered a person dependent on his own son as there is no love-lost between these two persons. 19. coming to the third petitioner-wife, this court is told that she is aged about 30 years. in the background of the events narrated before this court, there cannot be cordial relationship between said shankar and his wife - the third petitioner. however, the third petitioner being the wife of deceased shankar, she is entitled to some compensation as the law is very clear that even a divorced wife is entitled for maintenance from the husband. the real victim, in all probability, seems to me, to be the mother who is the second petitioner herein, against whom no grievances are made out by said shankar. the second petitioner is stated to be 55 years old. as i said earlier, in motor accident cases, compensation is granted on the basis of dependency while taking into account the age of the deceased, his income etc., by applying the relevant multiplier. in this case, the income of the deceased cannot be fixed as he was undergoing life imprisonment. 20. to grant a lump sum compensation to the second petitioner, the endeavour of this court shall not be to create any estate in the hands of the second petitioner. what is needed to be seen in this case is that the second petitioner, aged about 55 years, needs maintenance for the rest of her life. she also, in all probability, has no affection or love towards the first petitioner who is her husband as there is an allegation against the first petitioner and third petitioner by the said shankar about illicit relationship. the second petitioner is one who has really been deprived of the company of her son and is also deprived of dependency on her son. therefore, for maintaining hereself, i am of the view, an amount of rs. 400/- per month is the reasonable amount that could be directed to be paid by the first respondent to the second petitioner for the rest of her life. 21. coming to the third petitioner-wife of deceased shankar, though there are allegations against her, when even a divorcee wife is entitled for maintenance, i am of the view, the third petitioner is also entitled to receive some compensation. the third petitioner is stated to be around 30 years of age. whether she had continued to remain as wife of the deceased shankar on his return from the jail after serving his jail term, this court cannot visualise such a situation. however, i am of the view, a reasonable compensation that could be directed to be paid to the third respondent/petitioner by the first respondent is an amount of rs. 25,000/-. 22. as far as the first petitioner is concerned, i do not see any wisdom to award compensation to the first petitioner in the background of the allegations made against him by said shankar. accordingly, i hold that the first petitioner is not entitled to receive any compensation from the respondents. 23. accordingly, the first respondent is directed to pay a monthly compensation of rs. 500/- to the second petitioner being the mother of the deceased shankar for the rest of her life. this payment of rs. 500/- per month shall be made on or before 10th of every month, commencing from the month of september, 1995. the first respondent shall also pay a lump sum amount of rs. 25,000/- to the third petitioner being the wife of deceased shankar on or before 30-9-1995. the first respondent shall also pay rs. 5,000/- each to the second and third petitioners within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, besides the amounts as directed above, to meet the immediate requirements of these petitioners. the second and third petitioners shall open accounts in any nationalised bank in their names enabling the first respondent to credit the amount in their accounts as directed above. 24. the writ petition is allowed in above terms with costs of rs. 2,000/- to be payable to the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 25. petition allowed.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. Petitioners seek a mandamus to declare that the respondents are wholly responsible for the death of one S. Shankar, a convict undergoing life term in Central Prison, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad and consequently direct the respondents to pay a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs to the petitioners.

2. Few acts are narrated hereunder for the purpose of appreciating the issues raised in this writ petition.

3. The Writ Petition is filed by three persons. Petitioner No. 1 claims to be the father of the deceased S. Shankar, petitioner No. 2 claims to be the mother and petitioner No. 3 claims to be the wife of the deceased S. Shankar, who are aged 60, 55 and 30 years respectively.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that said Shankar was undergoing imprisonment for life in the Central Prison, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad. On 11-8-1992, they received a telegraphic communication from the third respondent who is the Superintendent of Central Prison, Chanchalguda Jail, Hyderabad intimating the expiry of said Shankar on 10-8-1992 in the Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. The petitioners apprehend that the death of Shankar is due to the tortuous acts and cruel treatment meted out to him by the staff of the third respondent, while he was undergoing imprisonment in the Central Prison. These petitioners claim that while Shankar was alive and before he was imprisoned to undergo life sentence, he was working as a coal filler in Singareni Collieries, earning about Rs. 1500/- per month. Petitioners further claim that they were solely dependent on the earnings of said Shankar. Their livelihood is now being deprived on account of untimely death of said Shankar. Therefore, the petitioners are claiming a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs from the respondents.

5. On behalf of the respondents, a detailed counter has been filed, inter-alia, contending that they are not responsible for the death of Shankar. On the contrary, the respondents have taken a specific stand that said Shankar was beaten to death by a co-convict one Chakali Nagendrudu. It is the case of the respondents that on the intervening night of 9/10-8-1992, one of the co-convict by name Chakali Nagendrudu inflicted injuries to said Shankar in barrack No. 4 in which said Nagendrudu, deceased Shankar and few other were lodged. It is stated that said Shankar, Negendrudu and two others were unwell and on the basis of the advise of the doctors, all these persons were lodged in barrack No. 4 which is a rest room. It is further stated that on the intervening night of 9/10-8-1992, said Chakali Nagendrudu inflicted injuries on the body of Shankar with the help of a broken wodden piece which was kept in the latrine for cleaning purposes. When the scuffle was going on between Chakali Nagedrudu and Shanker, the other convicts who were also in the said barrack made hue and cry and tried to protect Shankar from Chakali Nagendrudu. On hearing the hue and cry, the staff of the Central Prison also came running, opened the barrack and separated Shankar from Chakali Nagendrudu and rushed Shankar to Osmania General Hospital and was given some treatment, where he was declared dead by the doctors. In this background, the respondents state that they are not responsible for the death of said Shankar. They also deny the allegation that Shankar was done to death on account of the tortuous acts of the staff of the Central Prison. The respondents also disown any responsibility to pay compensation and seek dismissal of the writ petition.

6. In this background, two important questions arise before this Court for consideration, viz.,

1) Whether the State is responsible for the death of said Shankar who died while he was undergoing imprisonment for life term and whether the State is liable to pay compensation

2) What is the quantum of compensation that could be awarded to the petitioners

7. There are different versions as regards to the cause of death of said Shankar. Petitioners claim that the death of Shankar was on account of the tortuous acts meted out to him by the staff of the third respondent. On the contrary, the respondents claim that the death of Shankar was only on account of the injuries inflicted by co-convict Chakali Nagendrudu, which fact has not been disputed by the petitioners. However, for the purpose of determining the liability of the State for payment of compensation, I am of the view, the cause of death of Shankar while he was serving life term in Central Prison, need not be gone into in the background of the admitted fact that said Shankar died while he was undergoing imprisonment in the Central Prison, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad.

8. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Smt. Kewal Pati v. State of U.P. 1995 (2) SCALE Page 729, even though the death of a prisoner is on account of the acts of a co-convict, yet the prison authorities are not absolved of their responsibility to ensure his life and safety in jail. A prisoner does not cease to have his constitutional right except to the extent he has been deprived of it in accordance with law, as held by the Supreme Court in Francies Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi AIR 1981 SC 746. The prisoner is also entitled for protection to his life. Since said Shankar was killed while he was in jail, it resulted in deprivation of his life contrary to law. His untimely death has deprived these petitioners his company and affection. Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure as established by law. In the instant case, the killing of said Shankar had taken place while he was in jail, it resulted in deprivation of his life, contrary to law. Failure to protect the life of said Shankar by the jail authorities, the jail authorities are to be held responsible. Therefore, I hold that the jail-authorities are responsible for the death of said Shankar.

9. The next question is whether the State could be held responsible to pay compensation for the acts done by its servants In a series of decisions in Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar : 1983CriLJ1644 , Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India : [1984]1SCR904 , M. C. Mehta v. Union of India : [1987]1SCR819 , Saheli, A Women's Resource Centre v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi : AIR1990SC513 and Smt. Nilabati Behera Alias Lalita Behera v. State of Orissa : 1993CriLJ2899 the Supreme Court has categorically held that the State is responsible for the acts committed by is servants. I therefore, hold that in view of the law laid down by the Supeme Court in the cases cited supra, the State is responsible for the death of Shankar whose life could not be protected while he was undergoing imprisonment in Central Prison, Chanchalguda Hyderabad and as such, the State cannot absolve its responsibility from paying compensation to the eligible petitioners.

10. Question No. 1 is answered accordingly.

11. Coming to the second question as to the quantum of compensation that could be directed to be paid by the respondents, it is necessary to examine this aspect with special reference to the dependency, age, earning and other factors which have been placed before this Court during the course of arguments.

12. It has been stated in the counter filed by the respondents that the deceased Shankar was on earlier occasion imprisoned and was undergoing jail term. While he was undergoing jail term, his wife seems to have given birth to a child which is said to be born through his own father. On hearing this news, Shankar got frustrated and developed grudge against his father and wife. After his release from the prison, said Shankar seems to have gone to his place and killed the child ruthlessly on account of which he was charged under Section 302, of I.P.C. A Sessions Case was recorded against said Shankar in S.C. No. 18/88 and he was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302, I.P.C. and also rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 377 of I.P.C. both sentences to run concurrently. These facts have not been disputed by the petitioners. Respondents state that on account of the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court, Adilabad in S.C. No. 18/88, said Shankar was undergoing life term in Central Prison, Chanchalguda, Hyderbad.

13. It is the case of the petitioners that deceased Shankar was an employee of Singareni Collieries as coal filler earning a monthly wage of Rs. 1500/-. But no salary certificate is placed to that effect before this Court. It is stated that at the time of his death, Shankar was aged about 39 years. According to the respondents, said Shankar was sentenced to life imprisonment in S.C. No. 18/88 dated 29-9-1988. Admittedly, said Shankar died on 10-8-1992. As on the date of his death, he has completed nearly 4 years of jail term. The remaining period of jail term is another 10 years from the date of his death. As on the date of his death, Shankar was aged around 39 years. Therefore, from 1992 to another 10 years i.e., by 2002, in all probability, said Shankar would have served his full term in jail. On his serving the jail term, as indicated the age of said Shankar would probably be around 50 years. A man of 50 years old is capable of finding grounds for his livelihood and also feeding his dependents.

14. In motor accident cases, compensation is granted by the Tribunals on the basis of determination of dependency, loss of estate, consortium to wife etc. For the purpose of determining the compensation, Tribunals are also to take into consideration the age of the person as on the date of the accident and the income being derived by the person as on that date, and to apply relevant multiplier for the said purpose.

15. In case of this nature, awarding compensation for custodial death, Courts have been granting lump sum amount on the ground of denial of full life to the deceased and also denial of livelihood to his dependents.

16. In this case, the deceased is said to be a criminal undergoing imprisonment. At the first instance, he was imprisoned and after completing his term, he was freed from the jail. He was again imprisoned on account of the offence committed under Section 302 of I.P.C. for killing the child. Though the petitioners have claimed that deceased Shankar was an employee with Singareni Collieries and was earning a monthly wage of Rs. 1500/-, prudence would not permit this Court to assume that Singareni Collieries would have again accommodated him and given him the same job. However, the possibilities of Shankar taking out some avocation for his maintenance and for the maintenance of his dependents are not ruled out.

17. There are three petitioners in this case. First petitioner is the father, second petitioner is the mother and the third petitioner is the wife of the deceased Shankar. The allegation that Shankar suspected the fedility of his wife having illicit contact with his own father and has given birth to a child which was later on killed by said Shankar has not been denied by the petitioners. In this background, can it be assumed that said Shankar could have still maintained his father and his wife had he been alive

18. The first petitioner is stated to be 60 years old. When there are allegations against the first petitioner-father by his own son, which fact has not been disputed by the petitioners, I am of the view, the father cannot be considered a person dependent on his own son as there is no love-lost between these two persons.

19. Coming to the third petitioner-wife, this Court is told that she is aged about 30 years. In the background of the events narrated before this Court, there cannot be cordial relationship between said Shankar and his wife - the third petitioner. However, the third petitioner being the wife of deceased Shankar, she is entitled to some compensation as the law is very clear that even a divorced wife is entitled for maintenance from the husband. The real victim, in all probability, seems to me, to be the mother who is the second petitioner herein, against whom no grievances are made out by said Shankar. The second petitioner is stated to be 55 years old. As I said earlier, in motor accident cases, compensation is granted on the basis of dependency while taking into account the age of the deceased, his income etc., by applying the relevant multiplier. In this case, the income of the deceased cannot be fixed as he was undergoing life imprisonment.

20. To grant a lump sum compensation to the second petitioner, the endeavour of this Court shall not be to create any estate in the hands of the second petitioner. What is needed to be seen in this case is that the second petitioner, aged about 55 years, needs maintenance for the rest of her life. She also, in all probability, has no affection or love towards the first petitioner who is her husband as there is an allegation against the first petitioner and third petitioner by the said Shankar about illicit relationship. The second petitioner is one who has really been deprived of the company of her son and is also deprived of dependency on her son. Therefore, for maintaining hereself, I am of the view, an amount of Rs. 400/- per month is the reasonable amount that could be directed to be paid by the first respondent to the second petitioner for the rest of her life.

21. Coming to the third petitioner-wife of deceased Shankar, though there are allegations against her, when even a divorcee wife is entitled for maintenance, I am of the view, the third petitioner is also entitled to receive some compensation. The third petitioner is stated to be around 30 years of age. Whether she had continued to remain as wife of the deceased Shankar on his return from the jail after serving his jail term, this Court cannot visualise such a situation. However, I am of the view, a reasonable compensation that could be directed to be paid to the third respondent/petitioner by the first respondent is an amount of Rs. 25,000/-.

22. As far as the first petitioner is concerned, I do not see any wisdom to award compensation to the first petitioner in the background of the allegations made against him by said Shankar. Accordingly, I hold that the first petitioner is not entitled to receive any compensation from the respondents.

23. Accordingly, the first respondent is directed to pay a monthly compensation of Rs. 500/- to the second petitioner being the mother of the deceased Shankar for the rest of her life. This payment of Rs. 500/- per month shall be made on or before 10th of every month, commencing from the month of September, 1995. The first respondent shall also pay a lump sum amount of Rs. 25,000/- to the third petitioner being the wife of deceased Shankar on or before 30-9-1995. The first respondent shall also pay Rs. 5,000/- each to the second and third petitioners within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, besides the amounts as directed above, to meet the immediate requirements of these petitioners. The second and third petitioners shall open accounts in any nationalised bank in their names enabling the first respondent to credit the amount in their accounts as directed above.

24. The writ petition is allowed in above terms with costs of Rs. 2,000/- to be payable to the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

25. Petition allowed.