Legal heirs may access a deceased's bank locker when no disputes exist, confirming the necessity of following due banking procedures.

ORDER

This Writ Petition is disposed of at the time of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents bank to permit the petitioners to operate the bank locker in Locker No.C-7/19 with the second respondent bank, based on the petitioner’s representation, dated 09.04.2025.

3. The petitioners claim that they are the only surviving legal heirs of the deceased Velayutham, who was holding the aforesaid bank locker with the second respondent Bank. It is submitted that all the surviving legal heirs as per the Legal Heir Certificate, dated 24.12.2024 are before this Court and therefore, they are entitled to open the locker.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the deceased Velayutham had not been given any nomination in favour of any person to operate the locker in his absence.

5. It is submitted that no Will also has been executed in favour of any of the petitioners and therefore, on this ground also relief sought for by the Writ Petitioners cannot be granted.

6. That apart, it is submitted that there is an express bar, particularly, in Section 47ZF of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 , as per which the Bank is not expected to entertain any claim in respect of any safety locker, unless of course, a decree order or certificate or other Authority from the Court of competent jurisdiction relevant to the locker or its content is produced before the Banking company.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, referred to recent decisions of this Court rendered in similar circumstances in R.M. Parvathi, S.Meenakshi, R.M.Kannathal and Valliyammai vs. State Bank of India ,vide order dated 21.02.2024 in W.P.(MD) No.3848 of 2024, wherein taking note of the rigour of Section 45ZF of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 . The court has held as under:

“In this case, not only the wife of the hirer, but the other legal heirs have also joined together and are the petitioners before this Court. If there is no consensus among the legal heirs of the hirer, then the Bank will be justified in insisting on production of Letter of Administration. Where there is no dispute and the legal heirs make a joint request for opening the saftey locker and taking the articles kept there in, the bank need not relegate the applicants to go before the competent Court. Such a course of action is unnecessary. The Courts are there to adjudicate disputes. Where there is no dispute and where the interest of the bank is not going to be affected in any manner, the authority need not insist on obtaining Court orders. Be that as it may, now that the petitioners are before this court and it is obvious that there is no dispute among the legal heirs, I permit them to make a joint application before the respondent. The following documents should accompany the said application; a) Death certificate of hirer b) Legal Heir certificate As and when the application is submitted, the same shall be accepted by the respondent.

4. The learned Standing counsel states that the petitioner will have to execute an Indemnity Bond. The other formalities to be stipulated by the respondent shall also be complied with. It is for the petitioner to convince the respondent regarding the identity of the applicants. If any charges are payable, the same shall also be duly remitted. The petitioners shall be permitted to open the locker and also take all the articles kept therein. This writ petition stands allowed on these terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”

8. The learned cousnel for the respondents Bank has also referred to para

10.2 of the Circular No.NBG/PBU/LIMA-SDL/21, dated 20.01.2022 issu