JUDGMENT : Alok Aradhe, J. Sri. Rajadithya Sadasivan, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri. Ramachandra.G.Bhat, learned Counsel for the respondent. The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. In this writ petition, petitioner, inter alia, seeks quashment of communication dated 29.12.2018 issued by respondent as well as for writ of mandamus directing the respondent to pay the petitioner all amounts due to the petitioner under the policy No.364193949 held by the respondent. 3. Facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that, petitioner is the daughter of Ponnaganti Satish Reddy and Ponnaganti Vidyulatha. It is averred in the writ petition that Ponnaganti Satish Reddy subsequently changed his name to Kaushik Punitha Sharma and got married to Shreelatha Kekuda. From the second wife, Ponnaganti Satish Reddy had one daughter namely, Shreeraksha and one son by name Kaustubha Sharma. After changing his name, Ponnaganti Satish Reddy purchased a life Insurance policy with the respondent in his new name Kaushik Punitha Sharma by policy No.364193949 having maturity amount of Rs.2,15,00,000/-. Ponnaganti Satish Reddy, his second wife Shreelatha Kekuma, his daughter Shreeraksha and son Kaustubha Sharma unfortunately died on 28.3.2014. The biological mother of the petitioner namely Ponnaganti Vidyulatha was suffering from terminal illness and died on 8.5.2014. The only surviving heir of Ponnaganti Satish Reddy @ Kaushik Punitha Sharma is the petitioner. The Deputy Tahsildar of Bangalore South taluk has issued surviving family member's certificate in favour of the petitioner. It is pertinent to mention here that Ponnaganti Satish Reddy died intestate. Petitioner, therefore, lodged a claim with the respondent. However, the officials of the respondent informed the petitioner that until and unless the petitioner produces the Succession Certificate, the claim of the petitioner to release the maturity amount under the policy in favour of the petitioner cannot be processed. 4. Thereupon, the petitioner initiated proceedings for grant of Succession Certificate in the city civil Court, Bengaluru. The aforesaid proceedings were decreed on 27.3.2018 and succession certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner, which has been annexed as Annexure 'E' to the writ petition. In spite of issuing the Succession Certificate, the respondent evaded the attempts made by the petitioner to release the amount. Petitioner was therefore constrained to make complaint with the "Insurance Regulatory Development Authority". In spite of issuing the Succession Certificate, the respondent evaded the attempts made by the petitioner to release the amount. Petitioner was therefore constrained to make complaint with the "Insurance Regulatory Development Authority". In response thereof, petitioner was served with the impugned communication by which the petitioner was informed that her claim has been approved. However, it was stated that the title of the petitioner is not clear and the respondent has taken decision to challenge the Succession Certificate before this Court. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once a Succession Certificate is granted by the competent Court, the same is conclusive and binding on all the persons. It is further submitted that the respondent has no locus to challenge the Succession Certificate, which has been issued in favour of the petitioner and on production of the Succession Certificate, the amount due to the petitioner ought to have been released by the respondent. However, the respondent instead of releasing the amount due and payable to the petitioner, has stated that the title of the petitioner is not clear. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the father of the petitioner was not the policy holder and therefore, the respondent has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the nominee of the policy is P.V.Latha and therefore, the amount cannot be paid to the petitioner. It is also submitted that it is not known that P.V.Satish Reddy and the police holder are the same persons and it is also not known that petitioner's mother married Kaushik Punitha Sharma, the policy holder. Therefore, the action of the respondent in not disbursing the amount due under the policy in favour of the petitioner is justified. It is further submitted that the Succession Court grossly erred in not summoning the policy documents before issuance of Succession Certificate. It is further submitted that the policy is assigned in favour of Life Insurance Corporation of India against loan and the amount of loan was due. However, it was fairly submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that under the policy in question, the respondent owes a sum of Rs.1.3 crores and the Life Insurance Corporation of India is not expected to handover the money in favour of a stranger. However, it was fairly submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that under the policy in question, the respondent owes a sum of Rs.1.3 crores and the Life Insurance Corporation of India is not expected to handover the money in favour of a stranger. It is also submitted that against order of granting Succession Certificate an appeal has been filed in Regular First Appeal No.718/2019, which is pending before this Court. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. 8. Admittedly, the respondent is a Corporation constituted under the Life Insurance Corporation of India Act and is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent. The respondent being the State discharging public functions is required to act in a fair and rational manner even in contractual field. In this connection a reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in 'SARDAR ASSOCIATES AND OTHERS VS. PUNJAB AND SIND BANK AND OTHERS, (2009) 8 SCC 257 ', 'ZONAL MANAGER CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA VS. DEVI ISPAT LIMITED AND OTHERS, (2010) 11 SCC 186 '. Although rights of the parties emanate from the contract, however, the respondent is required to act in a reasonable and fair manner even while acting in the realm of contract. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in 'ABL INTERNATIONAL LTD., VS. EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEE CORPN. OF INDIA LTD., (2004) 3 SCC 553 '. 9. In the instant case, petitioner has admittedly produced the Succession Certificate dated 27.3.2018. From perusal of the aforesaid Succession Certificate it is evident that the petitioner had applied for grant of Succession Certificate on 15.12.2017 under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act in respect of debts and securities held by deceased Kaushik Punitha Sharma (mentioned as Ponnaganti Satish Reddy @ Kaushik Punitha Sharma in the petition) who died on 28.3.2014. The competent Court, after conducting an enquiry, has issued a Succession Certificate in favour of the petitioner and it has been held that the petitioner is entitled to succeed in respect of the insurance policies held in the name of deceased father of the petitioner Ponnaganti Satish Reddy @ Kaushik Punitha Sharma, as mentioned above. The competent Court, after conducting an enquiry, has issued a Succession Certificate in favour of the petitioner and it has been held that the petitioner is entitled to succeed in respect of the insurance policies held in the name of deceased father of the petitioner Ponnaganti Satish Reddy @ Kaushik Punitha Sharma, as mentioned above. Thus, the perusal of the Succession Certificate leaves no manner of doubt that the petitioner by a competent Court has been declared to be the daughter of deceased Ponnaganti Satish Reddy @ Kaushik Punitha Sharma. 10. It is pertinent to mention here that the policy was taken in the name of Kaushik Punitha Sharma. The aforesaid name is also mentioned in the Succession Certificate. The respondent is bound by the Succession Certificate, which has been issued by the competent Court. Before issuance of Succession Certificate, a notice was issued inviting objections. Thus, admittedly, the respondent has preferred no objections to the notice inviting objections issued by the competent Court and has never contended before the Court that the petitioner is not the legal representative of the policy holder. The respondent cannot sit over the decision taken by the competent Court of law by stating in the communication dated 29.12.2018 that title is not clear. The aforesaid action of the respondent in fact tantamounts to contempt of the order passed by the competent Authority. 11. Merely because the respondent has filed an appeal against the order granting the Succession Certificate, the respondent does not get the licence to retain the amount. The respondent has not produced any order of such, which may have been granted by the appellate Court in the appeal. In the fact situation of the case, action of the respondent which is a instrumentality of the State cannot but be termed as arbitrary. It is well settled in law that payment should be made on the basis of Succession Certificate and inter se claim if any, could be adjudicated only by the proper Forum (see State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Chhangur Prasad Seth, (1996) 7 SCC 667 ). The officers of the respondent-Corporation are not above law and are bound by law. They are supposed to act in accordance with law and are bound by the Succession Certificate, which has been issued by a Court of competent jurisdiction. Vs. Chhangur Prasad Seth, (1996) 7 SCC 667 ). The officers of the respondent-Corporation are not above law and are bound by law. They are supposed to act in accordance with law and are bound by the Succession Certificate, which has been issued by a Court of competent jurisdiction. The officers of the respondent have shown their highhanded approach in sitting over the matter and informing the petitioner that the title of the petitioner is not clear, despite the fact that a Court of competent jurisdiction has issued a Succession Certificate in favour of the petitioner. The aforesaid conduct of the officers of the respondent is deprecated. Admittedly, under the policy, an amount of Rs.1.3 crores is due and payable. There is no justification to withhold the aforesaid amount with the respondent. 12. In view of the preceding analysis, the impugned communication dated 29.12.2018 is hereby quashed and the respondent is directed to release the amount of Rs.1.3 crores due under the policy bearing No.364193949 to the petitioner within a period of one month from today subject to petitioner's furnishing due security, failing which, the aforesaid amount shall carry interest @ 9% from the period of one month till the actual payment is made. Needless to state that the payment of aforesaid amount shall be subject to outcome of the appeal, which has been preferred by the respondent against the order by which, the Succession Certificate has been granted in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.