MATHEW LUKE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the Secretary of the Joint Christian Action Council. This Writ Petition is filed by him, seeking a writ of mandamus against the State of Kerala and its Law Secretary to take action on certain representations filed by the Council, praying to issue an exemption notification under S.3 of the Indian Succession Act. The brief facts of the case are the following:-

(2.) The declaration of law made by the Apex Court in "Mary Roy v. State of Kerala". 1986 KLT 508 SC has affected the settlement of properties made by several Christian families in Kerala. The Apex Court declared that the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) will govern intestate succession of Christians, thought to be governed till that time, by the local Laws. On behalf of the Christians affected by the said Judgment, the petitioner moved the Government and the Government agreed to introduce a State Legislation for nullifying the retrospective effect of the aforementioned decision of the Apex Court. It is submitted, Bill Nos. 105 of 1994 and 155 of 1996 were prepared by the Government, but, they were never introduced in the Legislative Assembly. The petitioner submits, the urgency of the matter was being brought to the notice of the Government from time to time. The Council, on 25.7.2001, submitted Ext. P1 representation before the Government, praying, atleast to issue a notification under S.3 of the Act, exempting the retrospective operation of the provisions of the Act from 1.4.1951 to 23.1.1986. By Ext. P2 representation dated 15.10.2001, the petitioner forwarded an article written by him, dealing with the case decided by the Honourable Supreme Court. The Government informed the petitioner, in answer to Ext. P2 that the matter is under the consideration of the Government, by communication dated 11.12.2001. The petitioner filed another representation, Ext. P3 dated 11.10.2002, before the Grievance Cell of the Chief Minister's office in the Secretariat, pointing out the inaction of the Government. By Ext. P4 reply dated 6.11.2002, the petitioner was informed that the matter is under the consideration of the Law Minister. The petitioner, on 12.2.2004 submitted Ext. P5 representation before the Chief Minister of Kerala, praying either to issue a notification under S.3 of the Act or to pass Bill No. 105 of 1994 in the Legislative Assembly. The Chief Minister, by Ext. P6 letter dated 13.2.2004, informed the petitioner that the representation filed by him has been received.

(3.) In the above factual background, the petitioner submits that though this Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to enact a law, this Court can compel the Government to apply their mind to the issue raised by the petitioner. It is contended that the Government are bound by the promises held out by them. It is also submitted that the action to be taken to redress the grievance of the petitioner, is an executive function, which, this Court may compel the Government to perform. The main prayer in the Writ Petition is to issue a Writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents to apply their mind properly to the various representations submitted by the petitioner and to take action on them, as expeditiously as possible.