Murari Kedia Huf And Anr vs The Postmaster
2023 Latest Caselaw 1637 Cal/2

OD 6

                              WPO/1776/2021
                      IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                     CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
                               ORIGINAL SIDE



                         MURARI KEDIA HUF AND ANR.
                                    VS
                        THE POSTMASTER , BARABAZAR
                           POST OFFICE AND ANR.


  BEFORE:
  The Hon'ble JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA
  Date: 21st July, 2023.


                                                                     Appearance:
                                                            Mr. Vinay Shraff, Adv.
                                                               Ms. P.S. Paul, Adv.
                                                              ...for the petitioners

                                                     Ms. Rini Bhattacharyya, Adv.
                                                             ...for the respondents

The Court: Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner

had a deposit with the concerned post office, under a Public Provident Fund

Scheme.

It is submitted that the said scheme continued up to March 31, 2019 and

was subsequently closed. Thereafter, when the petitioner asked for refund of the

amount along with interest, the interest was refused by the Postal Authorities by

citing a notification dated December 7, 2010. In terms of the said notification, an

account opened on behalf of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) prior to May 13,

2005 shall be closed after expiry of 15 years from the end of the year in which the

initial subscription was made and the entire amount standing at the credit of the

subscriber shall be refunded, after making adjustments, if any, in respect of any

interest due from the subscriber on loans taken by him. It is contended that in

terms of the said notification, the time of 15 years after opening the account

expired on March 31, 2014.

However, even subsequent thereto, the petitioner's deposits were accepted

under the said account by the Postal Authorities and interest was also shown to

have accrued in the account of the petitioner. In that regard, the petitioner also

places reliance on photocopies of the relevant extracts from the passbook of the

petitioner with regard to the said account.

It is contended that even if, in terms of the notification, the tenure of the

scheme expired on March 31, 2014, the petitioner was never intimated as to such

expiry. That apart, even subsequent deposits were accepted from the petitioner

by the respondent authorities under the scheme. Hence, it is submitted, the

petitioner is entitled, under the doctrine of legitimate expectation, to the refund of

the entire amount, including the interest payable on the said sum, up to March

31, 2019, as well as interest for the subsequent period, till refund of the said

amount to the petitioner.

In support of such contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner places

reliance on certain judgments.

The petitioner first cites a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in MRF

Limited versus Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) Sales Tax reported at 2006

(206) E.L.T. 6 (S.C.). Learned counsel further places reliance on another

judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Civil Appeal No(s). 593-594 of 2020

(M/s. Granules India Ltd. versus Union of India and Ors.). Learned counsel

further cites The State of Gujarat & Ors. versus Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel which

was rendered on February 18, 2022.

Learned counsel then cites a judgment of the High Court of Karnataka at

Bengaluru, in the matter of Sri. K. Shankarlal, versus The Postmaster HSG I

India Post, etc.

Learned counsel also places reliance on certain judgments annexed to the

writ petition in support of his contentions. It is argued that in view of the

respondent authorities having withheld the interest of the petitioners during the

entire period of the litigation, the petitioner is also entitled to subsequent interest

till recovery.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent authorities cites a printout

handed over to Court today, from the concerned website of the Department of the

Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances of the Government of India, and

contends that there is availability of an equally efficacious alternative remedy in

the form of a complaint before the appropriate authority as contemplated under

the said scheme. Hence, the present writ petition, it is argued, is barred by law.

Learned counsel also contends that the Postal Department itself, during

the relevant period when the tenure of 15 years elapsed in the present case, was

undergoing certain internal migration issues, due to shifting from the physical

mode to digital operation. As such, it is argued, the Postal Department cannot be

faulted for not having informed the petitioner about the concerned notification.

It is further argued by the respondent authorities that the petitioner only

made deposits up to the month of May, 2015. As such, the argument, that the

petitioner is entitled to interest up to March 31, 2019, is not legally tenable.

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, the issue which strikes at the

root on the question of maintainability, is the availability of an alternative

remedy.

A bare perusal of the printout handed over on behalf of the respondent

indicates that the Centralised Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System

is an online platform available to the citizens 24/7 to lodge their grievances to

the public authorities "on any subject related to service delivery".

However, in so far as the challenge thrown in the instant writ petition is

concerned, the same pertains to more basic questions as to entitlement of the

petitioner with regard to the refund of the interest payable on the scheme opened

by the petitioner. The issues herein involve both questions of law as well as

adjudication on Constitutional doctrines as well as principles of natural justice.

Hence, it can safely be said that the subject matter of the present writ petition is

not restricted to service delivery, which is adjudicable by the authority

contemplated under the scheme as cited by the respondents.

In so far as the internal difficulties and migration issues of the postal

department is concerned, the same, per se, cannot be a defence in the present

case, since the pertinent question is on the entitlement of the petitioner and not

mere mala fides on the part of the Postal Authorities. Irrespective of the

intentions of the Postal Authorities, it is required to be decided in the present

case as to whether the petitioner is entitled in law and in equity to the claim as

made in the present writ petition. Hence, such internal issues cannot assume a

relevant proportion in the present context.

Inasmuch as the alleged deposit of amounts by the petitioner in connection

with the account-in-dispute only up to the month of May 2015 is concerned, the

same is also not germane. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the

petitioner, irrespective of the length of time up to which deposits were made, the

nature of the Public Provident Fund Scheme was such that the same would yield

benefits to the petitioner till it was closed, on the basis of the amount which had

been deposited in total by the account holder.

Hence, the said issue is also not germane in the present context.

In so far as the judgment cited by the petitioner is concerned, it is the

consistent view of the Supreme Court as well as other High Courts, that the State

or its instrumentalities cannot take advantage of their own wrong. As held by the

Supreme Court in MRF Limited (supra), quoted from previous judgments of the

Supreme Court itself, a person may have a 'legitimate expectation' of being

treated in certain way by an administrative authority even though he has no legal

right in private law to receive such treatment. The expectation may arise either

on the basis of representation or promise made by the authority, including an

implied representation or from consistent past practice.

In the present case, it cannot be ignored that the petitioner had gone on

depositing under the scheme offered by the respondent authorities. Further, the

respondent authorities never refused to accept deposits under the said scheme,

even after the expiry of the tenure thereof under the relevant notification.

As held by the Supreme Court in M/s. Granules India Ltd. (supra), the State

is the largest litigant and stands in a category apart, having a solemn and

Constitutional duty to assist the Court in dispensation of justice. The State

cannot behave like a public litigant and rely on abstract theories of burden of

proof.

As held in the State of Gujarat (supra), the State cannot be permitted to

take the benefit of its own wrong. It has been consistently held by the Supreme

Court in several cases in disputes such as the present one that, having kept

quite all along, the authorities cannot pass the buck upon the petitioner and

render an account irregular and deny interest for the investment made by an

account-holder.

Hence, placing reliance on the proposition of law laid down in the above

noted judgments, the petitioner in the present case can definitely rely on the

doctrine of legitimate expectation for making the claim as made in the present

writ petition.

That apart, even a bare perusal of the notification dated December 7, 2010

reveals that the same contemplates that an account of the nature as held by the

petitioner shall be closed after expiry of 15 years from the end of the year in

which the initial subscription was made and "the entire amount standing at the

credit of the subscriber shall be refunded .....".

In the present case, there is no question of making any adjustments, since

there is no allegation that there was any interest due from the

subscribers/petitioner on loans taken by him. Hence, it is clear that it was the

incumbent duty of the respondent authorities, after the expiry of the tenure of 15

years, to refund to the subscriber the entire amount standing at the credit of the

subscriber (obviously including the interest accrued up to date).

Having not done so, the respondent authorities are bound by the principles

of estoppel as well as acquiescence.

Although learned counsel appearing for the respondent authorities seeks to

place reliance on Clause 14 of an amendment to the extant regulation, which

says that in case any post office accepts deposits after the majority of the

account on completion of 15 years or more, such deposits of subscription is

irregular as per the rules of the scheme, such irregularity in the account book of

the Postal Authorities does not render the claim of the petitioner vis-à-vis the

Postal Authorities illegitimate or illegal.

Insofar as the jural relationship between the petitioner and the respondent

authorities is concerned, the respondent authorities, having accepted deposits

even after the expiry of the expiry of the notification period, and not refunded the

same, are bound by their said action to honour their commitments to the

petitioner under the Public Provident Fund Scheme, till the same was closed on

March 31, 2019.

Hence, despite the stand taken by the respondent authorities, there is

nothing to deter this Court from directing the respondent authorities to pay the

interest on the petitioner's deposits under the concerned scheme at the rate

under the scheme, till March 31, 2019.

Since the respondent authorities unlawfully withheld the said interest from

the petitioner till date, the petitioner is also entitled to interest on the said

interest at a reasonable bank rate.

Accordingly, WPO 1776 of 2021 is allowed on context, thereby directing the

respondent authorities to disburse the entire amount of interest accrued to the

petitioner on the deposits made under the concerned Public Provident Fund

Scheme, in terms of the provisions of the scheme till March 31, 2019.

The respondent authorities shall also pay to the petitioner interest on the

amount which was payable to the petitioner in terms of the above direction as on

March 31, 2019, at the rate of 8% per annum till the date of payment of the same

to the petitioner.

The entire payment, as directed above, shall be made to the petitioner by

the respondent authorities within August 31, 2023. In the event such payment

is not made by August 31, 2023, the respondent authorities shall pay further

interest to the petitioner, taking the principal to be the total amount payable as

on August 31, 2023, at the rate of 8% per annum on the said amount which is

payable on August 31, 2023 till disbursal of the amount to the petitioner.

No order as to costs.

Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be made available

to the parties subject to compliance with the requisite formalities.

(SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.)

SP/