Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 31445
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.DHANDAPANI, J
Minor Shri.Anuj Kumar, Represented By His Father And Natural Guardian, Shri P. Rickhab Chand – Appellant
Versus
Chief Post Master General, Tamilnadu Circle, Chennai. – Respondent
WP No. 4321 of 2024 & W.M.P.No.4648 of 2024|Appeal no. PG/13-1/Appeal/190/2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.R. Krishna Prasad
For the Respondents: Mr.K.Ramanamoorthy, Senior Panel Counsel
Belated refusal of irregular PPF deposits after years of acceptance entitles payment of due interest.
Headnote:The petitioner opened a Public Provident Fund (PPF) account for his minor son in 2012 after making deposits in his own account, allegedly exceeding individual subscription limits under PPF Scheme rules. Respondents issued notices claiming irregularity and ordered closure without interest after over a decade. Court found no dispute on facts of deposits totaling Rs.5 lakhs from 2011-2016. Issue framed: Whether PPF account for minor is irregular if opened after guardian's subscription reaches annual maximum limit per Rule 30 of POSB Volume 1 and Rule 17 of POSB General Rules 1981. Ratio: Respondents accepted deposits for years without objection; belated closure after 15 years without interest unsustainable, as petitioner could have chosen alternate investments if refused earlier. Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 08.12.2023 set aside; respondents directed to pay applicable PPF interest within six weeks.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to ppf account closure for exceeding limits. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments on deposit limits and disclosure rules. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. belated action unjust; interest payable on deposits. (Para 5 , 6) |
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 1st Respondent herein dated 08.12.2023 in Appeal no. PG/13-1/Appeal/190/2022 and quash the same and further direct the 3rd Respondent to permit the Petitioner to operate PPF Account No. 0781057538 opened in the name of Anuj Kumar, on 02.02.2012 with due interest on all deposits therein, as per the Public Provident Fund Scheme For Petitioner(s): Mr.R. Krishna Prasad For Respondent(s): Mr.K.Ramanamoorthy, Senior Panel Counsel
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records of the 1st Respondent herein dated 08.12.2023 in Appeal no. PG/13-1/Appeal/190/2022 and quash the same and further direct the 3rd Respondent to permit the Petitioner to operate PPF Account No. 0781057538 opened in the name of Anuj Kumar on 02.02.2012 with due interest on all deposits therein as per the Public Provident Fund Scheme.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
The petitioner along with his family members had opened PPF Accounts with the 3rd respondent / Postal Office in the year 2011-2012. On 05.08.2022, the 3rd respondent, issued notice to the petitioner alleging that the petitioner opened the PPF Account in the name of his Minor son, namely, Anuj Kumar, which is illegal and the said account must be closed. On 24.08.2022, the petitioner issued a reply notice to the 3rd respondent and brought to the attention of the 3rd respondent that all the four accounts pertain to a single family and the overall subscription limit for PPF accounts should be considered at consolidated level. Again, on 26.09.2022, the 2nd respondent issued notice to the petitioner and reiterated the contention of the 3rd respondent, as if the petitioner had crossed the maximum subscription limit for the year 2011-2012 and again, the petitioner deposited the subscription amount in the name of his son, Anuj Kumar and sought for closure of the account. Further, on 27.09.2022, the petitioner filed a grievance petition indicating that PPF Account in the name of Anuj Kumar should not be treated as irregular account, however the same was not considered. As against which, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 27.12.2011, before the 1st respondent. However, the 1st respondent vide order dated 08.12.2023 has negatived the petitioner’s grievance and hence the present Writ Petition is filed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit admittedly the petitioner made a deposit with the 3rd respondent in the name of the petitioner’s son, Anuj Kumar for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- initially, during the year 2011-2012 and thereafter, from the year 2011-2012 to 2021-2022, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was deposited and in toto, a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs was deposited by the petitioner in favour of his son. However, after receipt of sum of Rs.5 Lakhs, the respondents forced the petitioner to close the account, which is not a sustainable one. Further, if the petitioner cannot maintain the PPF Accounts for his family, the respondents ought to have refused the subscription amount in the name of the petitioner’s son, in the year 2011 itself, if the same was done, the petitioner could have deposited the amount in other funds, however, the same has not been done and the present impugned order has been passed, nearly after a decade, which is not a sustainable one and this Court may issue a direction to the respondents to pay the applicable interest for the PPF Account as on date to the petitioner.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents filed a detailed counter and submits that any individual may open PPF Account for Self / Minor at any post office or Bank and a declaration is being obt
