JUDGMENT - LODHA R.M., J.:---Having considered the controversy, we are of the view that rule deserves to be issued and disposed of at this stage. Hence rule. Returnable forthwith Dr. Bathiya waives for respondents.

2. The petitioner approached and applied to respondent No. 3 for issue of two Six Year National Savings Certificates for the amount of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- respectively. On the application and payment made by the petitioners, two Six Year National Savings Certificates. VIII issue came to be issued by respondent No. 3 on 18th July, 1995. The relevant portion of National Savings Certificate at Exhibit B reads thus:---

"The Government of India promises to pay to Romeo Marine Management a sum not exceeding Rs. 20150.00 (RUPEES TWENTY THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY) only on or after the 18-7-2001. This certificate is issued pursuant to Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Notification No. C.S.R. 496(E) dated the 1st May, 1989."

The relevant part of other National Savings Certificate at Exhibit "C" reads thus:---

"The Government of India promises to pay to Romeo Marine Management a sum not exceeding Rs. 10075.00 (RUPEES TEN THOUSAND AND SEVENTY FIVE) only on or after the 18-7-2001. This certificate is issued pursuant to Government of India Ministry of Finance, Notification No. C.S.R. 196(E) dated the 1st May, 1989."

3. The aforesaid certificates were due to mature on July 18, 2001 and on the mandatory date. It is the case of the petitioner that he presented the aforesaid certificates after making discharge endorsement on the reverse. The respondent No. 3 refused to pay the petitioner the promised sums on the National Savings Certificate necessitating the filing of the present writ petition.

4. An affidavit in reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is their defence that though the Six Year National Savings Certificates VIII Issue were issued, the petitioner is not entitled to any sum more than the invested amount because the certificates were issued to him due to clerical oversight and mistake. It is their case that no such certificates could be issued in the name of proprietary firm. It is submitted that vide notification published in Gazette of India Extraordinary on 8th March, 1995, effective from 1st April, 1995, amendment in the National Savings Certificate (VII Issue) Rule, 1989 took place and thereby a Single Holder Type Certificate could only be issued to (i) an adult for himself or on behalf of a minor or to a minor (ii) a Trust. The respondent have, thus, set up the case that a proprietary firm does not fall in any of the category to which a Single Holder Type Certificate could be issued and by clerical oversight/mistake the certificates were issued, the respondents cannot be directed to enforce a statutory prohibition as contained in the Gazette dated 8th March, 1995.

5. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 12 of the Government Savings Certificate Act, 1959 the Central Government made the Rules called "National Savings Certificates (VIII Issue) Rules, 1989. The said Rules came into force on 8th May, 1989. Rule 4 provides for types of certificates and issue thereof which reads thus:---

"4. Types of certificates and issue thereof.---(1) The certificates shall be of the following types, namely:---

(a) Single Holder Type Certificates;

(b) Joint "A" Type Certificates; and

(c) Joint "B" Type Certificates

(2)(a) A Single Holder Type Certificate may be issued to:---

(i) an adult for himself or on behalf of a minor or to a minor;

(ii) a banking company excluding a co-operative bank;

(iii) a company;

(iv) a Corporation;

(v) an association, institution or a body registered as a society under any law for the time being in force excluding co-operative society;

(vi) a firm;

(vii) a local authority;

(viii) a trust.

(b) A joint "A" type certificate may be issued jointly two adults payable to both the holders jointly or to the survivor.

(c) A jointly "B" type certificate may be issued jointly to two adults payab

Click Here to Read the rest of this document