IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY TUESDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 25TH MAGHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 2665 OF 2023 PETITIONER/S:

1 LALITHAMBIKA AGED 60 YEARS W/O LATE SASIDHARAN PILLAI, SALINIBHAVAN, AAYOOR KOLLAM -691533.

2 SALINI AGED 41 YEARS D/O LATE SASIDHARAN PILLAI, SALINI BHAVAN, AAYOOR KOLLAM -691 533. 3 SHYAMLAL AGED 39 YEARS S/O LATE SASIDHARAN PILLAI, SALINI BHAVAN, AAYOOR KOLLAM - 691 533.

BY ADV PRAVEEN K. JOY RESPONDENT/S:

1 GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL COMMITTEE STATE BANK OF INDIA, CHADAYAMANGALAM BRANCH, CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOLLAM PIN-691 534.

2 STATE BANK OF INDIA CHADAYAMANGALAM BRANCH, CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOLLAM PIN-691 534, REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

3 THE BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA, CHADAYAMANGALAM BRANCH, CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOLLAM PIN-691 534.

BY ADVS.

SHRI.JITHESH MENON, SC, SBI SRI. JAWAHAR JOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

‘C.R’

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

---------------------------------------------------------

W.P.(C). No. 2665 of 2023 ---------------------------------------------------------

Dated this the 14th day of February, 2023.

JUDGMENT

A short but interesting question emerging for consideration in this writ petition is whether a joint locker hirer is liable to secure a letter of administration or succession in order to operate the locker in the event of the death of one of the hirers.

2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are summarised as follows:

The first petitioner is the wife of late Sasidharan Pillai and petitioners 2 and 3 are their daughter and son. The first petitioner along with late Sasidharan Pillai, have hired a locker jointly with locker No.26 in the State Bank of India, Chadayamangalam Branch, Kollam District. It is the case of the petitioners that the hirers are keeping their valuables/gold ornaments in the said locker. Sri. Sasidharan Pillai died on 31.07.2022, evident from Exhibit P1 death certificate dated 08.08.2022. According to the petitioners, the death of Sasidharan Pillai was intimated to the Bank on time; and the sole legal heirs of Sasidharan Pillai are the petitioners.

3. Anyhow, after the death of Sasidharan Pillai, the first petitioner approached the Bank to permit her to operate or open the locker. However, the request was declined. Later, the first petitioner was intimated, as per Exhibit P3 letter dated 04.01.2023 by the Branch Manager, respondent No.3, that she has to secure necessary proof of legal representation in the form of Probate or Letters of Administration.

4. The case of the petitioners is that since the first petitioner is a joint hirer to operate the locker, the stand adopted by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are illegal and arbitrary. It is also the case of the petitioner that during the lifetime of Sasidharan Pillai, the joint hirers were permitted to operate the locker independently and there is no requirement at all under the contract executed by and between the parties that the locker could be operated jointly only.

5. It is further pointed out that this question was considered by this Court in Shobha Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala [2019 (1) KLT 801], wherein one of the joint hirers of a locker, on production of a death certificate, was directed to permit to operate the locker. It is also contended that the stand adopted by the respondent Bank is against the settled principles of law and the policies and guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India.

6. On the other hand, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have filed a joint counter affidavit, justifying the stand adopted in Exhibit P3 letter dated 04.01.2023. Along with the same, a circular and revised guidelines are also produced as Exhibits R2(a) and R2(b) dated 18.08.2021 and 20.01.2022 respectively, and relying upon the same, the learned Standing Counsel has advanced arguments that the Bank was right in insisting for Probate or letter of administration from the peti