Kerala High Court
Thiru Kudumba Vivahasahayadhana Fund vs The Post Master on 20 January, 2020
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 30TH POUSHA, 1941
WP(C).No.33279 OF 2010(H)
PETITIONER/S:
THIRU KUDUMBA VIVAHASAHAYADHANA FUND
CHERIAKADAVU, KANNAMALI P.O., ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, KERALA- 682 008, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY, AUGUSTINE P.J. @ JOHNSON.
BY ADV. SRI.R.MURALEEDHARAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE POST MASTER, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS
INDIA, KANNAMALY POST OFFICE, KANNAMALY,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KOCHI-04
2 THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT DEPARTMENT
OF POSTS INDIA, O/O.THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
OF POST OFFICES, ERNAKULAM DIVISION,
KOCHI-11.
3 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY
ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS,
MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI-01
R1 BY SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, ASG OF INDIA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
20.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.33279 OF 2010(H) ..2..
JUDGMENT
The petitioner claims to be an association formed on 15.08.1982 under the leadership of the Parish Priest of St.Josephs Church, Cheriakadavu. The association was formed to extend financial assistance on co-operative basis for marriage of the children of the parishioners of the christian families within the limits of the church. The parents as well as guardians, who are members of the association, used to pay weekly subscription to the association subject to a maximum of Rs.100/-. As per the terms, the members were entitled to get back a contribution together with 20% bonus if they withdraw the deposit within four years. The fund is controlled and administered by a committee headed by the president. In the year 2002, the Executive Committee of the petitioner association decided to invest the surplus funds in their hand in some long term investment plans and accordingly, a sum of Rs.60,000/- was invested in '5½ year Kisan Vikas Patra' issued by the 3rd respondent under the Government Savings Certificates Act, 1959. Exts.P-2 to P-2(e) certificates were issued to the petitioner on 23.12.2002. As per the terms of the certificate, the amount of investment would double after a period of 5½ years. The '5 ½ year Kisan Vikas Patra' purchased by the petitioner matured on 22.06.2008 WP(C).No.33279 OF 2010(H) ..3..
and according to the petitioner, they are entitled to get back a sum of Rs.1,20,000/-. They then approached the 1 st respondent for closure of the deposit and to withdraw the amount. However, to the utter dismay of the petitioner, they were told that they are eligible for the principal amount only and not for any interest on deposit. According to the petitioner, a notification dated 08.03.1995 was issued by the 3 rd respondent, whereby the institutions are not permitted to invest in 'Kisan Vikas Patra' with effect from 01.04.1995. It is contended that the action of the respondents is a highhanded one and would amount to unfair trade practice. The petitioner contends that they were never informed about the change of law when the amount was deposited in the year 2002. They have thus approached this Court for a direction to the respondents to pay off the deposit to the petitioner together with interest as offered, forthwith and for further directions.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 to 3. In the counter affidavit, it is asserted that a Single Holder Type Kisan Vikas Patras (for short, "KVPs") were purchased by the petitioner on 23.12.2002 from Kannamaly Post Office. The issuance/purchase and encashment of KVP is governed by KVP Rules. By notification No.GSR 370(E) dated 23.03.1988, KVPs could have been issued to association, institutions or body registered as a society under any law for the time WP(C).No.33279 OF 2010(H) ..4..
being in force. However, subsequently, the KVP Rules were amended by the Central Government by notification dated 08.03.1995 and as per the amended rule, a single holder type KVP can be issued to an adult for himself or on behalf of a minor or to a minor or a trust. According to the respondents, the petitioner being an association, could not have purchased KVP as per the amended rules. It is further contended that issuance of certificate to the petitioner was irregular without noticing the fact that the petitioner was neither a trust nor an individual as defined in the amended rules. The respondents have also relied on a decision of this Court in W.A.Nos. 1488 & 1674 of 2014, wherein this Court had occasion to consider a similar issue.
3. I have considered the submissions advanced and have perused the records. I find that in Civil Appeal No. 4995/2006 (Arulmighu Dhandayudhapaniswamy through its Joint Commissioner v. The Director of General Post Offices & Others) decided on 13.07.2011, a similar issue had come up before the Apex Court. In paragraph 9, it was held as follows;
"9. It is true that when the appellant deposited a huge amount with the 3 respondent from 05.05.1995 to 16.08.1995 under the Scheme for a period of five years, it was but proper on the part of the Post Master to have taken a note of the correct Scheme applicable to the deposit. It was also possible for the WP(C).No.33279 OF 2010(H) ..5..
Post Master to have ascertained from the records could have applied the correct Scheme and if the appellant being an institution, was not eligible to avail the Scheme and advised them properly. Though Mr. S. Aravindh, learned counsel for the appellant requested this Court to direct the 3 respondent to pay some reasonable amount for his lapse, inasmuch as such direction would go contrary to the Rules and payment of interest is prohibited for such Scheme in terms of Rule 17, we are not inclined to accept the same. We are conscious of the fact that a substantial amount had been kept with the 3 rd respondent till 03.01.1996, when the said amount was refunded without interest. In the light of the letter dated 01.12.1995 and in view of Rule 17 of the Rules, failure to pay interest cannot be construed as a case of deficiency in service in terms of Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Both the State and the National Commission have concluded that the 3rd respondent was ignorant of any Notification and because of this ignorance the appellant did not get any interest for the substantial amount. We agree with the factual finding arrived at by the State and the National Commission and in view of the circumstances discussed above, the respondents cannot be fastened for deficiency in service in terms of law or contract and the present appeal is liable to be dismissed."
4. The same view was taken by this Court in Poonithura Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Post Master & Others [2011 (4) KHC 86] wherein it was held thus :
Having heard the learned counsel on both sides and considering the rival submissions, I am inclined to agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the WP(C).No.33279 OF 2010(H) ..6..
respondents. Admittedly, the deposit in question has been made in terms of the Kisan Vikas Patra Rules, which does not provide for deposit by Institutions such as Co - operative Banks like the petitioner. The fact that the Bank is the depositor, though receipts have been issued in the name of the then President and the Secretary, is not a matter which is disputed by the petitioner even. In such circumstances, the deposit is irregular and if that be so, the question is whether an irregular depositor is entitled to the benefit of the scheme. This very issue was considered by the Apex Court In Ext. R1(a) Judgment referred to above where a similar claim made by a temple was turned down by the Apex Court holding that the deposit was irregular In terms of R.17 of the Post Office Savings Bank General Rules. Therefore, the issue canvassed by the petitioner is fully answered by the said Judgment. For that reason, the relief has to be declined.
The ratio of the above decision would squarely apply on all fours in the instant case as well.
5. In that view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
At this stage, the learned counsel prays that right of the petitioner to approach the respondents and seek interest be reserved. This writ petition will stand dismissed reserving such right.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
bka
WP(C).No.33279 OF 2010(H) ..7..
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BYE LAWS OF THE
PETITIONS AS AMENDED ON 15.08.2003.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE 5 1/2 YEAR KISAN VIKAS
PATRA ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
NO.49CC 71824.
EXHIBIT P2 (A) TRUE COPY OF THE 5 1/2 YEAR KISAN VIKAS
PATRA ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
NO.49CC 71825.
EXHIBIT P2 (B) TRUE COPY OF THE 5 1/2 YEAR KISAN VIKAS
PATRA ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
NO.49CC 71826.
EXHIBIT P2 (C) TRUE COPY OF THE 5 1/2 YEAR KISAN VIKAS
PATRA ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
NO.49CC 71827.
EXHIBIT P2(D) TRUE COPY OF THE 5 1/2 YEAR KISAN VIKAS
PATRA ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
NO.49CC 71828.
EXHIBIT P2 (E) TRUE COPY OF THE 5 1/2 YEAR KISAN VIKAS
PATRA ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
NO.49CC 71829.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER ON
APPLICATION BY THE PETITIONER DATED
09.04.2010.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE INTER-OFFICE
CORRESPONDENCE SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH EXTRACT OF NOTIFICATION DATED 17.03.1995.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.09.2010.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R1(A) CERTIFIED COPY OF KISAN VIKAS PATRA RULES AS PER NOTIFICATION NO.G.S.R.119(E) DATED 08.03.1995.