SMT.SAROJ KUWAR @ SAROJ DEVI v. THE UNION OF INDIA & Ors.

affirmed by respondent no.3. Finally representation was rejected and communicated by the respondent no.2. Besides the above, letters contained in Annexures- 1, 3 & 5 were communicated at the village address of the husband of the petitioner in district Kaimur. No transaction/correspondence has taken place in Bihar save and except the internal correspondence between the officials of the Corporation as would be appearing from Annexure-6. Besides the above, there are two important aspects of the matter. Firstly, the claim of the L.I.C. policy in question was repudiated by the respondent-Corporation on account of their finding which claims to be based on the detailed report of the Hand-writing Expert that the signature was forged, and as such, the proposal itself was a fraudulent one. So far as the question that whether the signature on the proposal form was forged or not, the same depends upon relevant evidence. The petitioner claims that the signature was genuine whereas the stand of the Corporation is that the signature was forged. Therefore, this serious disputed questions of fact with regard to a document being forged or not can not be appropriately adjudicated in a writ proceeding. Apart from the same, 6 the claim was repudiated and communicated as per the letter dated 31st of March, 2001 ( Annexure-1) which was reaffirmed and communicated to the petitioner as per the letter dated 23rd of September, 2002 (Annexure- 3) as also the rejection of the legal notice and communication to the petitioner by letter dated 30th January, 2003 (Annexure-5). The present writ application has been filed on 23rd of March, 2006 after delay of about three years for which there is no explanation in the writ application. For the reasons and discussions made above, I do not find any merit in this writ application. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)