ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to release the entire amount of Late Urmila Devi, wife of Late Mansha Kasera, which is deposited in Bank Account No.482010100009808, IFSC Code- BKID0004820, Bank of India, Kuju Branch, Kuju, in favour of the petitioner, who claims to be her only son and heir/legal representative. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s mother, namely, Urmila Devi died on 14th January, 2019 leaving behind two sons i.e. the petitioner and Ramesh Kasera. His brother-Ramesh Kasera also died on 28th June, 2019 and as such the petitioner is the only surviving heir/legal representative of Late Urmila Devi. The father of the petitioner- Mansha Kasera had already died on 9th June, 1993. The petitioner obtained family relation certificate from the Circle Officer, Mandu, Ramgarh on 17th July, 2019, which discloses that the petitioner is the only son and his two married sisters are living separately in their matrimonial houses. Under the aforesaid circumstance, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being the only surviving son of late Urmila Devi is entitled to receive the amount lying in the aforesaid bank account. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, stating inter alia that the concerned bank account, which was being operated by Late Urmila Devi, did not mention about the nominee and in that situation, the bank needs clarity as to who is the rightful claimant of the money lying in the said bank account. The authorities of the bank have asked the petitioner to obtain succession certificate from a competent Court of law which can only be treated to be a legal document for release of the amount in favour of the lawful claimant. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that two daughters of late Urmila Devi also came to the bank and orally raised objection against release of the amount in favour of the petitioner. Under the aforesaid circumstance, the bank has frozen the account of Late Urmila Devi. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, the petitioner is not the only heir/legal representative of late Urmila Devi, as his two married sisters are alive. Under the aforesaid circumstance, the bank has frozen the account of Late Urmila Devi. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, the petitioner is not the only heir/legal representative of late Urmila Devi, as his two married sisters are alive. Moreover, the concerned bank account of late Urmila Devi did not mention about any nominee so as to operate the same after her death. Though the respondents have stated in the counter affidavit that two daughters of Late Urmila Devi (sisters of the petitioner) have raised oral objection against release of the amount lying in the concerned bank account in favour of the petitioner, this Court does not wish to comment on the same, as no such written objection has been brought on record by the respondents. However, this Court finds substance in the stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit that since name of nominee has not been mentioned in the concerned bank account, if the petitioner claims the amount lying in the said account, he should produce succession certificate issued by a competent Court of law before the bank. Hence, no writ of mandamus, as prayed for by the petitioner in the present writ petition, can be issued. 5. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 6. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to obtain a succession certificate from the competent Court of law in support of his claim for release of the amount lying in the said bank account.