Madras High Court
Union Of India vs Arulmighu Devi Karumari Amman on 19 February, 2019
Author: T.S.Sivagnanam
Bench: T.S.Sivagnanam
1 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 19.2.2019 Coram :
The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Writ Appeal No.412 of 2019 & CMP.No.3837 of 2019
1.Union of India, rep.by its Post Master General, Head Post Office, Mount Road, Chennai-2.
2.The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Tambaram Division, Tambaram, Chennai-45.
3.The Post Master, Poonamallee Post Office, Poonamallee, Chennai-56.
4.The Post Master, Thiruverkadu Sub-Post Office, Chennai-77. ...Appellants Vs Arulmighu Devi Karumari Amman Thirukovil, Thiruverkadu, rep.by its Deputy Commissioner & Executive Officer, Chennai-77. ...Respondent APPEAL under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 24.11.2107 made in W.P.No.43020 of 2006.
For Appellants : Mr.V.Balasubramanian http://www.judis.nic.in 2 Judgment was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J This appeal has been filed by the Postal Department challenging the correctness of the order dated 24.11.2107 made in W.P.No.43020 of 2006 filed by the respondent herein represented by its Deputy Commissioner and Executive Officer, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department.
2. The respondent herein filed the said writ petition challenging the proceedings of the second appellant dated 22.9.2003, by which, the Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer of the respondent temple was intimated that the Ministry of Finance decided that only the invested amount might be refunded to the respondent temple in respect of the National Savings Certificates (NSCs)/Kisan Vikas Patras (KVPs) during the period from 07.8.1996 to 25.2.1997. The details of remittances as mentioned by the appellants in their counter affidavit filed in the said writ petition are as hereunder :
Name of the Category/Sl.No. Date of Issue Face Value in office of Rs.
Issue
Poonamallee KVP-28CC 621505-621604 13.6.96 1000000
KVP-28CC 621675-621714 12.8.96 400000
KVP-28CC 621759-621858 12.8.96 1000000
KVP-28CC 621908-621943 3.9.96 360000
KVP-17BB 245399-245408 12.8.96 50000
KVP-BB2 987864-987873 12.8.96 50000
NSC-11EE 546001-546010 8/14.11.96 100000
NSC-11EE 546615-546634 9.12.96 200000
NSC-11EE 546011-546022 26.12.96 120000
NSC-11EE 546490-546504 26.12.96 150000
NSC-11EE 546505-546547 18.1.97 430000
NSC-10EE 292931-293000 8/14.11.96 700000
NSC-09DD-586559 26.12.96 5000
NSC-26CC 522980 26.12.96 1000
NSC-26CC 522981-522983 18.1.97 3000
NSC-30AA 645322-645323 18.1.97 200
http://www.judis.nic.in
3
Name of the Category/Sl.No. Date of Issue Face Value in
office of Rs.
Issue
Tiruverkadu KVP-28CC 622770-622779 25.2.97 100000
Total 4669200
3. The total amount invested in the NSCs/KVPs is Rs.46,69,200/-. From the above tabulated statement, it is seen that the entire amount was not invested on a single day, but was invested periodically and that the appellant – Department issued necessary certificates. In fact, one such remittance made on 18.1.1997 was for a sum of Rs.200/-.
4. The appellant – Department stated that on and after 01.4.1995, the NSCs/KVPs cannot be accepted in the name of institutions in the light of the decision taken by the Postal Directorate and that the scheme was discontinued with effect from that date. Therefore, the appellant – Department informed the respondent that the NSCs and KVPs would have to be surrendered and the amount would be returned to them. Considering the exigency of the situation, the respondent temple accepted the payment of Rs.46,69,200/- without prejudice to their right to claim interest on the said amount, which was lying in deposit for over five years. This claim was negatived by referring to the proceedings of the Ministry as intimated to the respondent temple by the second appellant's communication dated 22.9.2003, which was impugned in the said writ petition. Ultimately, the said writ petition was allowed directing the appellants to pay interest at the rate of 18%. Therefore, the appellants are before us.
http://www.judis.nic.in 4
5. We have heard Mr.V.Balasubramanian, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellants.
6. Mr.V.Balasubramanian, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellants has strenuously contended that on and after 01.4.1995, the scheme was discontinued, that appellants 3 and 4 having accepted the amounts contrary to the directions issued by the Postal Directorate, the amount was rightly returned to the respondent temple and that the claim for interest was not sustainable.
7. In support of such a contention, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arulmighu Dhandayudhapani Swamy Thirukoil, Palani Vs. Department of Posts [reported in 2011 (13) SCC 220]. The learned Senior Standing Counsel would contend that the appellant before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was also a temple as that of the respondent herein, which had invested in the one time deposit scheme, for which, certificates were issued by the Postal Authorities, that the deposits having been effected after 01.4.1995, the same were returned to the temple therein and that the claim for interest made before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was rejected on the ground that the appellant was an institution and that no such deposit should have been accepted by the Department from the temple, as the scheme stood discontinued from 01.4.1995.
8. We have carefully gone through the said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We find that in the said case, the appellant did not contest http://www.judis.nic.in 5 the issue as to whether it was an institution or not. In fact, we find from the observations in paragraph 19 that a concession was given by the Department that it would not refund the amount of interest that might be paid to the temple.
9. The case of the respondent herein as projected before the learned Single Judge is that the respondent is a deity, that it is a juristic person and that it will not dall within the definition of the expression 'institution'. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge directed payment of interest on the amount, which was lying in deposit with the Postal Department. One more distinguishing factor in the case on hand is that deposits were made by the respondent temple between 07.8.1996 and 25.2.1997 and that after a period of five years, the Postal Department woke up and stated that the deposits had been wrongly accepted by the Department.
10. It is not clear as to whether any action has been taken by the Postal Department against those, who were responsible for accepting the deposits from the respondent temple. We agree with the learned Single Judge in holding that the respondent is a juristic person. Apart from that, the settled legal principle is that a deity is a perpetual minor and the Court has to step in to protect the interest of the deity. If that legal principle is applied to the case on hand, undoubtedly this Court is not denuded of its powers from protecting the interest of the respondent temple. http://www.judis.nic.in 6
11. Merely because the respondent temple is under the control of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department and there is an Executive Officer, the status of the deity will not change. The Executive Officer or the Board of Trustees is appointed only to maintain the affairs of the temple and they cannot substitute themselves in the place of the deity. The deposits stood in the name of the deity and therefore, the present case is unique and the said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is distinguishable.
12. The learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously contended that the learned Single Judge directed payment of interest at 18%.
13. Considering the fact that deposits were held for nearly six years and thereafter returned to the respondent, which accepted the same without prejudice to their rights, the learned Single Judge is fully justified in awarding payment of interest at 18%. For the above reasons, we find that the appellants have not made out any case for interference.
14. Accordingly, the above writ appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the connected CMP is also dismissed.
15. The appellants are directed to settle the interest to the respondent temple within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
19.2.2019 RS http://www.judis.nic.in 7 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J RS Internet : Yes WA.No.412 of 2019 & CMP.No.3837 of 2019 19.2.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in