IMPORTANT POINTS
Under the Constitution a mandamus can be issued by the court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to the performance of legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and the said right was subsisting on the date of the petition.

JUDGMENT :

S. Manikumar, J.

Instant writ appeal is directed against the judgment passed in W.P.(C) No.13627 of 2016 dated 13.09.2018, by which the writ court, after setting aside Exhibit-P4 order dated 3.2.2016 of the Director of National Savings Department, respondent No.2 therein, rejecting the request to transfer Mahila Pradhan Kshetriya Bachat Yojana (MPKBY) Agency from the name of Smt. T. Kamalakshi to and in favour of Smt. M. Sasikala, directed the respondents therein to consider the application of the writ petitioner for transfer of agency.

2. Short facts leading to the appeal are that writ petitioner was an agent of Mahila Pradhan Kshetriya Bachat Yojana Agency appointed on 27.10.1980. She crossed the upper age limit for continuation of Mahila Pradhan Agency. She filed an application for transfer of Agency in favour of Smt. M. Sasikala, wife of her grandson. By Exhibit-P4 dated 3.2.2016, the Director of National Savings Department, respondent No.2 therein, has rejected her request. Hence, W.P.(C) No.13627 of 2016 has been filed for a writ of certiorari to quash Exhibit-P4 as arbitrary and consequentially for a direction compelling respondent No.2 therein to transfer the Certificate of Agency in the name of Smt. M. Sasikala within a time frame.

3. Adverting to the above, the Liaison Officer and Under Secretary to the Government, Financial Department, attached to the office of the Advocate General, Ernakulam, has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No.2 before the writ court stating that the writ petitioner submitted a representation dated 2.1.2014 to the Director, National Saving Scheme for transfer of her Agency in the name of her grandson's wife on the grounds that writ petitioner has attained the age of 80 years and is suffering from illness. Her application was rejected. Challenging the same, writ petitioner filed W.P(C) No.17681 of 2014 in this Court and sought for transferring Mahila Pradhan Kshetriya Bachat Yojana Agency in favour of Smt. M. Sasikala, wife of her grandson. This Court directed the Director of National Savings to consider the application, within a period of one month, in the light of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Others v. V.P. Parukutty reported in (1997) 2 SCC 252.

4. Before the writ court, respondent No.2 has further contended that application of the writ petitioner to transfer her Agency in the name of Smt. M. Sasikala, wife of her grandson, was rejected on the grounds that the Government have stopped appointing new Mahila Pradhan Kshetriya Bachat Yojana agents. Further contention was made that the Director of National Savings has temporarily stopped appointing new Mahila Pradhan Kshetriya Bachat Yojana agents as the decision of the Government was pending on the proposal for revision of criteria for the appointment of new agents. Once a decision is taken by the Government and intimated to the Director of National Savings, application would be examined in the light of the said decision. On the above grounds, appellants/respondent Nos.1 to 3 sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. Adverting to the above pleadings and submissions, the writ court at paragraph 6 of the judgment dated 13.09.2018 in W.P.(C) No.13627 of 2016 ordered thus:

“6. On considering the contentions advanced on either side, I am of the opinion that the transfer of agency as requested by the petitioner would not amount to the grant of a fresh agency, since the petitioner has been functioning as an agent from 1980 on wards. In the above WP(C) No.13627 of 2016 4 view of the matter, and in the light of the submission made in the counter affidavit that Smt. M. Sasikala is eligible for grant of the agency on transfer, I am of the opinion that appropriate orders are liable to be passed by the respondents transferring the agency of the petitioner to Smt. M. Sasikala in accordance with law. The interdiction as stated in the counter affidavit with regard to the appointment of new Mahila Pradhan