Jayant Nath, J.

1. By the present appeal, the appellant seeks to impugn the order of the learned Single Judge dated 01.02.2016 dismissing the writ petition of the appellant.

2. The appellant filed the writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing communication dated 08.01.2014, 27.01.2014 and 11.07.2014 issued by respondent No. 1-Bank. A writ of mandamus was also sought to direct the Bank to refund the entire amount standing to the credit of the Public Provident Fund Account (in short `PPF Account') of the appellant including the deposit of Rs. 1 lac for the first year i.e. 2012-2013 together with interest.

3. The brief facts as available from the pleadings are that the appellant is a Non-Resident Indian (NRI). On 02.05.1991 while he was residing in Spain, he opened a PPF Account with the respondent Bank under the Public Provident Fund Scheme, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as `PPF Scheme'). The Scheme is framed under Section 3 of the Public Provident Fund Act, 1968. The appellant states that he gave the address of Spain while opening the said account. Thereafter, the appellant is said to have shifted his residence to France and intimated the same to the respondent Bank in 1992. He has thereafter been continuously living in France.

4. The term of the PPF account expired on 31.03.2007 on expiry of 15 years. On the request of the appellant, the PPF account was allowed to be extended for a period of five years. The period of five years expired on 31.03.2012.

5. On 01.07.2012 when the appellant sought to deposit Rs. 1 lac by debit from his NRO Savings Account, the respondent Bank declined inasmuch as the extended term of the PPF account expired on 31.03.2012. The appellant therefore on 27.07.2012 submitted the prescribed form as requested by the respondent Bank for continuance of his PPF account for a further block period of five years. It is the stand of the appellant that the respondent Bank on 03.10.2012 informed the appellant that the PPF account tenure has been extended till 31.03.2017. On the request of the appellant on 02.12.2012, a sum of Rs. 1 lac was credited to his PPF account on 03.12.2012 after debiting the said sum from his NRO Savings account. On 07.12.2013 for the financial year 2013-2014, the appellant made another request for deposit of Rs. 1 lac by debiting the same sum from his NRO Savings account. However, the respondent Bank did not do the needful and sent a communication to the appellant on 01.01.2014 stating that as per Government instructions, an NRI cannot continue with his or her PPF account after maturity. On 27.01.2014, the respondent Bank forwarded form `C to the appellant for closure of his account on the date of maturity i.e. 31.03.2012. Subsequent to several follow ups by the appellant, the respondent Bank on 11.07.2014 pointed out that the PPF account could not be extended in terms of Gazette Notification dated 25.07.2003.

6. As per the counter affidavit filed by respondent-2, Union of India, the PPF Scheme was launched in 1968 and initially NRIs were allowed to open the PPF account. However, pursuant to Gazette Notification dated 25.07.2003, an amendment was made in the Scheme and NRIs ceased to be eligible to open a PPF Account. However, an exception was provided that the residents who subsequently became NRI during the currency of maturity period, may continue to subscribe to the fund till its maturity on a non- repatriation basis. It is stated that the account of the appellant matured on 31.03.2007 and the respondent SBI has wrongly in contravention of the Scheme permitted extension of the account for a further period of five years. Similar is the case regarding the extension on 31.03.2012 when the respondent Bank has allowed the appellant to deposit Rs. 1 lac in his account on 01.07.2012 in contravention of the Scheme. It is clarified that the respondent No. 1 Bank is only a Nodal Agency and the fund is managed by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs.

7. The appellant had