Tapan Kumar Bose vs Union Of India & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 7532 Cal

                         IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                       CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
                                 APPELLATE SIDE

     Present :-

     Hon'ble Justice Partha Sarathi Sen


                          W.P.A. No. 21223 (W) of 2016
                               Tapan Kumar Bose.
                                    -Versus-
                              Union of India & Ors.


     For the Petitioner        : Mr. Saptarshi Chakraborty, Adv.


     For the UOI                : Ms. Indrani Chakraborty, Adv.


     Heard on:                 :    11.11.2022
     Judgment on.               :   14 .11.2022

     PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J. : -

1.   By filing the instant application under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India it has been contended by the writ petitioner that on 04.11.1993, he

invested a sum of Rs.4,08,000/- in the office of the respondent no.4 under four

separate Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) accounts. According to the petitioner

after maturity he handed over the original pass books of the said four MIS

accounts with respondent no.4 but to his utter surprise, the maturity value of

the said four MIS accounts has not been handed over to him and on the

contrary respondent no.4 proposed to deduct a sum of Rs. 1,57,000/- from the

maturity value of the said four MIS accounts. Finding no other alternative the

petitioner approached this High Court and in W.P No.3324(W) of 2005 an order

was passed on 15.02.2005, directing the respondents herein to release the

admissible dues of the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid four MIS accounts.

2. It is contended further that subsequently in WP No.3324(W) of 2005, this

High Court on 07.02.2014, directed to calculate the interest and to disburse

the same to the petitioner and accordingly admissible SB interest was also

paid. It has been contended further that though a sum of Rs.15,76,945/- was

due to the petitioner towards principal, interest and bonus as accumulated

under the said four MIS accounts but the same has not been disbursed and on

the contrary under cover of a letter dated 03.07.2014, the respondent no.3

accorded sanction for payment of a sum of Rs.2,326/- in favour of the

petitioner and being aggrieved by the decision as taken by the respondents

under cover of the aforesaid letter the petitioner has approached this Court

with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to release a sum of

Rs.15,76,945/- with a further prayer to cancel, set aside and rescind the

impugned decision of the respondent no.3 under cover of his letter dated

03.07.2014.

3. It is pertinent to mention herein that at the time of call learned advocate

for the petitioner asked for accommodation however, the same was not

considered by the Court favourably since it is a matter of record that on prior

occasions too, the petitioner had sought for adjournments on some plea or

other.

4. While opposing the prayer of the petitioner, learned advocate for the

respondents draws attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-opposition as filed

in this case as well as to the instruction as received by her from the

respondents. It is argued on behalf of the respondents that since the

aforementioned said four MIS accounts have been opened violating Rule 4 of

Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as

the said 'Rule') the present writ petitioner is only entitled to get interest at the

rate applicable from time to time to the post office savings account and not at

the rate applicable for MIS scheme. In support of her contention learned

advocate for the respondents also placed her reliance upon Rule 6, Rule 7 and

Rule 8 of the said Rule. Drawing attention of this Court to the annexures R2,

R3 and R4, it is argued that the aforementioned three annexeures clearly show

as to how calculation has been arrived at with regard to the entitlement of the

petitioner and thus the decision of the respondent authority to disburse

residual interest of Rs.2,326/- in favour of the writ petitioner is very much

justified. Learned advocate for the respondents thus request this Court to

dismiss the instant writ application.

5. On perusal of the entire materials as placed before this Court, it appears

to this Court that four MIS accounts of the petitioner have been opened

irregularly violating Rule 4 of the said Rules. Sufficient materials have been

placed before this Court to substantiate that in case of irregular deposit in MIS

accounts the account holder(s) is/are entitled to get interest as per prevailing

rate of interest of Post Office Savings Account and not as per the MIS scheme.

It reveals from the materials as placed before this Court on behalf of the

respondents that the present petitioner had deposited excess amount in

contravention of MIS Rule and therefore the present petitioner is not entitled to

get interest as per MIS scheme in respect of four MIS accounts in question.

6. There is thus no merit in the instant writ application. The instant

application is thus disposed of.

7. All connected applications, if any, stands disposed.

8. Let a copy of this judgement along with LCR be sent down at once.

9. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgement, if applied for, be given

to the parties on completion of usual formalities.

(Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)