HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.33251 OF 2013 Date: 24.07.2014 Between :
Dwarak Badrinath, S/o. K.Narayanan, Aged about 24 years, Occu: Student, R/o. Flat No.401, A.Block, Siddamsetty Towers, Jawahar Nagar, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad.
and The Chief Post Master General (FS) of CPMG, Dak Sadan, Abids, Hyderabad and another … Petitioner … Respondents The Court made the following:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.33251 OF 2013 ORDER:
The case of the petitioner is that his mother opened Public Provident Fund (PPF) Account in Himayath Nagar Post Office, Hyderabad. She also opened another PPF Account in the name of her minor son i.e., petitioner herein, in the year 2003 and deposits were made in both accounts. Petitioner attained majority in the year 2007. Over a period of time, the amount along with interest accumulated and the maturity amount lying in the account as on 31.03.2013 was R.9.89,883/-. However, an amount of Rs.2,22,431/- was retained by the 2nd respondent and released the balance amount. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner submitted a representation on 01.11.2013. Since, there was no response to the representation submitted, petitioner is compelled to institute this writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that having kept the deposits with the respondents, it is illegal to retain an amount of Rs.2,22,431/- from out of the proceeds accrued to the petitioner. Respondents have no authority or competence to deduct the said amount. Petitioner is not due of any amount. Learned counsel further submits that, though no decision is communicated to the petitioner, but as evident from the counter-affidavit, reliance is placed on a communication issued by the Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, dated 31.10.2005, which seeks to impose ceiling on deposits in a financial year put together or individual self account and accounts opened on behalf of minor. Learned counsel further submits that this circular was issued after the accounts were opened in the year 2003 and, therefore, it cannot be applied to the petitioner. It is further contended that no point of time, till 2013, neither the petitioner’s mother nor petitioner was informed of such instructions and asked to close one of the accounts. If the respondents have intimated to the petitioner’s mother or petitioner, they would have withdrawn the amount then itself and utilize properly. Thus, at the time of realization of the money on maturity on subsequent renewal, it is not open to the respondents do deduct the amount.
3. Learned standing counsel submits that as per the policy decision of the Government of India, no person can deposit more than Rs.70,000/- in one account or in more than one accounts in a financial year and since the mother of the petitioner deposits more than Rs.70,000/- in the financial year in both accounts put together, it was contrary to the Government of India orders. However, counter-affidavit is silent as to why the petitioner or his mother were not informed earlier about the Government of India instructions and requested to regularize the accounts or to operate one of the accounts.
4. Since the petitioner or his mother were never informed about such orders of the Government of India and the accounts were opened by the mother of the petitioner in the year 2003, it cannot be said that petitioner and his mother have deliberately opened two accounts in violation of the said orders. The accounts were opened in the year 2003, whereas the circular was issued in the year 2005. Furthermore, at no point of time, mother of the petitioner or petitioner were put on notice about the Government of India orders and directed them to regularize their accounts. Thus, without putting the petitioner or his mother on notice and having allowed the accounts to be continuously operated till the deposits are matured on subsequent renewal, it is not open to the respondents to deduct money, which legitimately belongs to petitioner. Such action of the respondent authorities is illegal without power and jurisdiction.
5. It is also appropriate to notice that though the Government of India instructions dated 31.10.2005 mandates the Bank Officials and the Postal Department to incorporate the instructions in the PPF passbook about the restrictions imposed by the Government, it does not envisage any penal consequences. Thus, unilaterally, the respondents cannot exercise such penal jurisdiction and retain the amount, which legitimately belongs to the petitioner. Hence, the action of the respondents in retaining the amount of Rs.2,22,431/- in the PPF Account No.80248 of the petitioner in the Post Office is held illegal and consequentially the respondents are directed to release the amounts retained by them within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this writ petition shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date: 24.07.2014 kkm Oval:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Writ Petition No.33251 OF 2013 Date: 24-07-2014 kkm