JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the 6th respondent in declining to issue a legal heirship certificate to the petitioners, they have approached this Court with this Writ Petition.

2. Brief facts are as under:

The petitioners are the wife and daughter of Sri. A. Jayapalan, who used to work as a Tyre Retreader in the Main Depot of the 2nd respondent Corporation. Jayapalan went missing on 30.4.2011 and has not been seen by persons who would naturally have heard of him had he been alive.

3. When he was found missing for a week or so, the petitioners approached the Mananthala Police Station and lodged a complaint on 7.5.2011 based on which, Crime No. 158/2011 was registered under section 57 of the Kerala Police Act. Despite a proper investigation by the police, they were not able to trace out his whereabouts. Exhibit P2 is the certificate issued by the Circle Inspector of Police, wherein it is stated that no clues could be obtained about the whereabouts of the missing person.

4. Armed with Ext.P1 and P2, the petitioners approached the 2nd respondent seeking family pension and by Ext.P3 order dated 16.5.2015, the same was sanctioned.

5. The petitioners then approached the 4th respondent and filed an application seeking grant of a declaration that Sri. A. Jayapalan was missing from 30.4.2011. After obtaining a report from the subordinate officers, Ext.P4 declaration dated 6.11.2019 was issued by the 4th respondent. Under the cover of Exts.P2, P3 and P4, the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent and filed Ext.P5 application seeking compassionate employment under the Dying-in-Harness Scheme. The 3rd respondent on receipt of Ext.P5, issued Ext.P8 directing the petitioner to produce a legal heirship certificate in order to enable them to process the application. In the said circumstances, the petitioner approached the 6th respondent and submitted an application for issuance of legal heirship certificate. It is contended that the 6th respondent refused to process the application and directed the petitioner to approach the Civil Court and obtain a succession certificate.

6. According to the petitioner, it was on the basis of Ext.P10 report of the Village Officer, Kudappanakkunnu, that Ext.P4 declaration was issued by the 4th respondent. It is pointed out that in Ext.P10, the Village Officer has clearly stated that the petitioners are the legal heirs of Sri. A. Jayapalan. According to the petitioners, in view of Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, if a person has not been heard of for more than 7 years by those who would have naturally heard of him if he had been alive, in the absence of any material to show that he is alive, he can be presumed to have been dead. It is contended that based on the afore provision, the 6th respondent was bound to issue the legal heirship certificate on the basis of Ext.P4 declaration made by the 4th respondent. It is on the above pleadings that the petitioners are before this Court seeking the following reliefs:

“i) That a writ of mandamus or other order be passed directing the respondents 2 and 3 to consider Ext.P5 application submitted by the 2nd petitioner and to grant compassionate employment to the 2nd petitioner under dying-in-harness scheme, on the strength of Exts.P3, P4, P7 and P10 documents.

ii) That a writ of mandamus or other order be passed, directing the 6th

respondent to consider Ext.P9 application and to issue legal heirship certificate to the petitioners on the strength of Ext.P4 declaration of the

4th respondent and Ext.P10 report of the Village Offfcer.”

7. Sri. A. Shammi Raj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that a learned Single Judge of this Court in judgment dated 22.5.2017 in W.P.(C) No.8107/2010 had occasion to consider the implications of Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act and following the law laid down in Indira K. V. Union of India and Ors. [ILR 2005 (3) Ker. 801] had occasion to observe that if a person went missing and has not been hea