Back
2023 Supreme(Kar) 198
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.Nagaprasanna, J.
Sri K.Shankarlal, S/O Late Sri K.Amarnath - Petitioner
Versus
The Postmaster HSG I India Post And Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 2042 of 2023 (GM-RES)
Decided On : 31-03-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri. Chandrashekar Patil., Advocate
For the Respondent: Sri.H.Shanthi Bhushan, DSGI
Point of Law: Rule 17 of Post Office Savings Bank General Rules, 1981, would apply only when an applicant is irregularly allowed something more than what is contemplated under a scheme.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 12, 142 - Post Office Savings Bank General Rules, 1981 - Rule 17 - Public Provident Fund Scheme - HUF account - Opening of account was irregular - Petitioner calling in question direction issued by 1st respondent holding that petitioner would not be entitled to any interest on deposit made by him in Public Provident Fund Scheme – Petitioner, a common man cannot be blamed that too after 12 years of opening of account - Para 12.
Finding of the Court: 1st and 2nd respondents could not have permitted opening of account and further could not have permitted deposits into account for 12 long years - Having kept quiet, all along cannot pass buck upon petitioner and make account irregular and deny interest for investment - Petitioner desirous of accumulating money for his daughter’s marriage opened account and continues investment into account - Action of respondents in denying interest on said investment comes as a rude shock to petitioner - Action of respondents in denying interest and directing closure of account holding it to be irregular does not behoove its status being a State under Article 12 of Constitution of India, as impugned action is far from fairness - It is for Authorities to detect such accounts which are opened irregularly as soon as they are opened, on intermittent scrutiny of accounts and inform such investors immediately, failing which, Officers who manage such accounts should be held responsible and accountable for such dereliction of duty - It is necessary for respondents to issue these instructions to all Post Offices who handle such accounts, so that common man does not bear brunt of unnecessary litigation - Impugned order stands quashed.
Result: Petition allowed in part.
ORDER :
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question direction issued by the 1st respondent dated 23-09-2021 holding that the petitioner would not be entitled to any interest on the deposit made by him in the Public Provident Fund Scheme.
2. Heard Sri Chandrashekar Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri H.Shanthi Bhushan, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents.
3. Facts adumbrated are as follows:-
The petitioner desirous of opening an account in the name of Hindu Undivided Family (‘HUF’ for short) in the Public Provident Fund Scheme (‘the Scheme’ for short) opened an account through an agent of the Provident Fund Organization who deals with such matters. The account was opened on 03.09.2009 and the maturity date of the said account is on 31.03.2025. The petitioner without fail has made deposits into the account which is now worth at Rs.12,96,412/-inclusive of interest applicable under the said Scheme. After about 12 years of opening of the account on 23-09-2021, the 1st respondent/ Postmaster HSG-I, India Post communicates to the petitioner observing that the petitioner has opened a PPF account under the Scheme in the capacity of HUF after 31-05-2005. Hence, it was treated as an account that was irregularly opened and had to be closed without interest and issues a communication to the 2nd respondent as well to communicate to the petitioner that the account would be carrying no interest.
4. The petitioner replies to the said communication on 04-10-2021 to settle the amount along with interest as the petitioner was not aware of any policy of Government and was neither made aware of the same by officers of the Post Office at the time of opening of the account or remittances to the account. The respondents declined to accede to the request of the petitioner which resulted in causing a legal notice upon the respondents to pay the deposited amount with applicable rate of interest along with damages. After receipt of the legal notice, the 2nd respondent on 10-06-2022 issues instructions to close the PPF accounts which are opened in HUF capacity in the office of the 1st respondent including that of the petitioner. It is these actions that drive the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends with vehemence that the petitioner opened the account on 03-09-2009, at which point in time no officer of the 1st respondent did ever mention that opening of the account was irregular. The deposits have been made for the last 12 years during which period also the petitioner was not made known that the account was irregular. The petitioner on the desire of earning interest has invested his money in the PPF under the Scheme in HUF account. Therefore, he would submit that for no fault of the petitioner he is now being penalized without any interest that too after several years of receipt of amount.
6. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that the petitioner is a literate person. Knowing fully well that the Scheme did not exist has opened HUF account and invested his money in HUF account under the PPF Scheme and having signed on the dotted line he is bound by whatever be the policy or law of Government of India notified from time to time. It is his submission that HUF PPF Scheme account stood closed way back in the year 2005. Four years after the closure of the Scheme the account could not have been opened. Therefore, the petitioner will not get any amount as interest on the investment. He would seek dismissal of the petition justifying the action of denying interest.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The Government of India through the 1st respondent had notified a Schem
