IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 12.12.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA

W.P.No.13809 of 2018

1. V.Kalpana

2. N.Venkatesh

.. Petitioners

Vs.

1. The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,

Mandaveli Branch,

Vekata Krishna Road,

Mandaveli, Chennai 600 028.

2. The Secretary,

Ministry of Finance,

Banking Division,

New Delhi.

.. Respondents

* * *

Prayer : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing

the first respondent State Bank of India, Mandaveli Branch, to

release the amount to the petitioners standing to the credit of

Mr.Natarajan in the Account No.10150944952 in Pass Book No.1015

maintained under the PPF Scheme, 1968.

* * *

For Petitioner :

Mr.G.Senthilkumar

For Respondents:

Mr.K.Chandrasekaran for R1

Mr.R.Veludas,

Central Govt. Standing Counsel for R2

O R D E R

The Bank Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of

Undertakings) Ordinance, 1969 was promulgated on 19.07.1969,

followed by Act 5 of 1970. The Preamble of the Act reads as

follows :

“An Act to provide for the acquisition and

transfer of the undertakings of certain banking

companies, having regard to their size, resources,

coverage and organisation, in order to control the

heights of the economy and to meet progressively and

serve better, the needs of development of the

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

economy in conformity with national policy and

objectives .....”

2. Even before the first nationalization of 14 Banks in the

year 1969 and the second nationalization of 6 Banks in the year

1980, the Imperial Bank was nationalised in 1955, making it the

State Bank of India/the first respondent herein. The object of

the nationalization, inter alia, is to “serve better”.

3. The petitioners are wife and son of one Natarajan, who

professed Advocacy from the year 1987. When he was a bachelor,

he opened a Public Provident Fund Scheme Account bearing Account

No.10150944952 in Pass Book No.1015 with the first respondent on

24.03.1995 for a period of fifteen years making his mother as

nominee. His mother died on 23.10.1999. During 2010 and 2015,

he extended the account for another five years. He died on

28.07.2017 leaving behind the petitioners as his legal heirs.

The first petitioner approached the first respondent making a

claim with respect to the amount lying in the said account. She

was asked to submit a claim form with certain documents, which

she had complied with on 04.11.2017. It is stated that the

first respondent forwarded the same to the Claims Department of

the respondent Bank on 07.11.2017. After repeated solicitation,

on 09.01.2018, she was given a copy of communication sent to the

first respondent by the Regional Manager (RBO-I), returning the

proposal. Though she made another representation on 12.02.2018,

the first respondent gave a bald reply asking her to produce the

letter of administration. The representation submitted to the

Regional Manager (RBO-I) thereafter on 17.03.2018 did not yield

any response at all till date. Hence, seeking a direction to the

first respondent to release the amount standing to the credit of

the said account, the petitioners filed this writ petition

before this Court.

4. Refuting the claim of the petitioners in the writ

petition and substantiating their stand, the first respondent

filed a counter affidavit.

5. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel on either

side and perused the materials available on record.

6. It is unfortunate that the petitioners lost the care,

love and affection of the husband and the father respectively.

The second petitioner is a college student at the time of death

of his father. The petitioners made a claim for return of the

amount, that was saved for their welfare by the deceased in the

Public Provident Fund Scheme Account. But it was re