JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.

Heard Shri M. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri K.M. Hassan, learned counsel for the applicants.

2. At the outset, it is made clear that in the I.A. though the applicant No. 1 has been made party respondent No. 3, the applicant No. 2 is not a party respondent in the writ proceedings and therefore, the appearance would only be regarded for the applicant No. 1/respondent No. 3. Though the name of Standing Counsel, LIC appears in the cause list, none is present while the matter is called upon.

3. Considering the subject matter of the writ petition and the fact that the same is pending since the year 2017 along with the I.A. the writ petition is also taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.

4. The present writ petition has been instituted by the petitioners, who are the mother, father and son of the deceased Abu Shama Ahmed. The deceased was a LIC Policy Holder being numbered 998875019 and in the said policy he had nominated the respondent No. 3 as the nominee. However, on the death of Abu Shama Ahmed, the respondent No. 3 on the strength of being a nominee has purported to take the entire benefit of the policy.

5. It is