IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that PPF accounts for minors should be treated separately post-majority, emphasizing beneficial interpretations of statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT :

HARISANKAR V. MENON, J.

The 3rd petitioner is the mother of the 1st and 2nd petitioners. The dispute in this writ petition is with regard to the interest accrued in three separate PPF accounts opened with the 2nd respondent herein by the petitioners.

2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are as under:

The 3rd petitioner started a PPF account No.821 with the 2nd respondent Post Office. Since the 1st and 2nd petitioners were minors during the period when account No.821 was started, and since the 3rd petitioner also wanted to have separate savings accounts in the name of her children, she opened separate PPF accounts with the 2nd respondent Post Office in the name of 1st and 2nd petitioners as Account Nos.822 and 823. Remittances were being made in the afore PPF accounts. It is straight away to be noticed that the 1st petitioner attained majority on 24.12.2005 and the 2nd petitioner attained majority on 26.09.2007.

3. The amounts lying in the PPF accounts were not withdrawn even after attaining majority, by the 1st and 2nd petitioners. They continued with the PPF accounts even thereafter.

4. However, during the year 2017, the matters took a 'u' turn. The 2nd respondent issued Ext.P4 communication dated 29.06.2017, addressed to the 3rd petitioner herein informing her that, since the deposit made in the afore three accounts, taken together, would exceed the limit prescribed by the various statutory provisions/schemes, the entire interest of Rs.6,80,000/- have to be forfeited by the Post Office. On the very next day, an amount of Rs.6,87,021/- representing the accrued interest lying in the three PPF accounts put together, was appropriated by the 2nd respondent.

5. It is in the said situation that the captioned writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking a direction to re-credit the amount of Rs.6,87,021/- to the accounts of the petitioners with interest from the date of debit till the date of actual credit.

6. A detailed statement dated 17.08.2017 has been placed on record by respondents 1 to 3, essentially referring to the details of deposits made in the three separate accounts afore mentioned, the factum of the petitioners signing the application while opening the PPF accounts undertaking to abide by the Rules framed by the Government, the provisions of the PPF Act and Rules, and the provisions of the Post Office Savings Bank Manual, etc.

7. I have heard Sri.K.Anand, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, as also, Ms.Cristy Theresa Suresh, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of Sri.Jaishankar V. Nair, the learned Central Government Counsel, appearing for the respondents.

8. Sri.K.Anand, the learned Senior counsel would submit as under:

(i) The deposits were made by the petitioners with specific reference to the provisions under the PPF Scheme, 1968. He would refer to Rule 2(a) of the Scheme to point out that the PPF account is covered by the said Scheme. He would also submit that under Rule 3(1) of the Scheme, an individual is permitted to operate or start an account on his own name as well as in the name of his minor children in his status as a guardian.

(ii) He would refer to the provisions of Section 4 of the PPF Act to contend that the Act also recognises the right of an individual to start an individual account as well as a representative account in the name of his minor children.

(iii) It is also pointed out with reference to paragraph 47 of the judgment of the Apex Court in Secretary Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa and Others v. G.C. Roy [AIR 1992 SC 732] that, insofar as the amounts were being held by the respondents herein, interest was liable to be paid to the petitioners.

(iv) He would also point out that the petitioners had not withdrawn the deposits or closed the accounts even during 2017, i.e., after the 1st and 2nd petitioners had attained majority and therefore, the respondents are not justified in initiating the steps culminating in Ext.P4.