Mr. Amar Deep Singh Narula vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 740 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Petitioner by this writ petition seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue duplicate Indira Vikas Patra certificates to the petitioner, in lieu of the certificates lost by the petitioner or in the alternative release the maturity amount of the Indira Vikas Patras, which matured on 1.12.1999.

2. Petitioner claims to have purchased 8 Indira Vikas Patras during the financial year 1994-95 with a total value of Rs. 20,000/-. The said Indira Vikas Patra had the maturity date as 1.12.1999. Unfortunately the petitioner states he lost the Indira Vikas Patras and the same are not traceable.

3. Petitioner claims to be the bonafide owner of the said Indira Vikas Patras, having purchased them and having duly declared the same in his tax returns. Petitioner claims to have availed of the standard deduction in his tax returns. The photo copies of the said Indira Vikas Patras have also been produced with the petition. Petitioner had lodged an FIR regarding the loss of Indira Vikas Patras with the Police Station on 27.10.1998. He thereafter requested for issuance of duplicate certificates in lieu of the certificates that had been lost. Petitioner also informed the respondent of the loss of the Indira Vikas Patra and requested that if any claim is made by third party, it should not be entertained.

4. Respondents took the position that Indira Vikas Patras are not endorsed or acknowledged in the subscribers name unlike shares or debentures or other securities. The Indira Vikas Patras can be enchased by any bearer at the time of maturity or even before maturity date after complying with the requisite formalities.

5. It may be noted that the petitioner had earlier filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction. The said suit was disposed of by the Civil Judge on the basis of a statement made by an Inspector of respondent No. 2. In terms of the said statement of the inspector, the encashment of Indira Vikas Patras shall be done only to the actual owner after verification. In case any objection of taking note of the petitioner's complaint and with the statement that the Indira Vikas Patras shall be encashed only after due verification to the owner.

6. During the course of the writ proceedings, the court went into the question as to what requirement the respondents would like for verification, if the petitioner's claim for reimbursement of the maturity amount was to be considered in the absence of any other party claiming. These could be publishing of the notice in the newspaper. Copy of the FIR, proof of identity and source of purchase etc. to be filed. Respondents have filed a counter affidavit, wherein it has been set out that the Indira Vikas Patras are in the nature of a bearer/encashable instrument and even at the time of issuance no record is either made or kept of the person to whom they are issued. No particulars of subscribers are noted. Counsel for the respondent has produced for perusal, the register, which only carries the number of Indira Vikas Patras sold and the remaining balance. Rule No. 9 and 10 of the Indira Vikas Patras Rules 1986 are as under:--

7. Encashment of certificate:- The person presenting a certificate for encashment shall sign in the space provided on the back thereof in token of having received the payment and indicate thereon his name and address.

10. Responsibility of the Post Officer:- The Post Officer shall not be responsible for any loss caused to a holder by any person obtaining possession of a certificate and fraudulently encashing it."

7. The above rules do not provide for the eventuality of reimbursement to a subscriber, who has lost the original Indira Vikas Patras. Ultimately, the position boils down to that there is no record available with regard to the subscriber of the Original Indira Vikas Patras. In case of any loss or theft of the Indira Vikas Patras, the complainant lodges his complaint with the authorities, who duly make a note of it. It is only when a claimant comes forward seeking reimbursement on the basis of said Indira Vikas Patras that the question would be considered and the claimant would be asked to furnish proof of having bonafide acquired, in view of the complaint of their loss by petitioner, claiming to be the original subscriber. In short it is stated that the Indira Vikas Patras is similar and akin to a currency note and a note cannot be replaced, if lost. Similarly Indira Vikas Patras cannot be replaced or duplicate issued. Reference is invited to a decision of the Division Bench in D.R. Abrol v. Union of India (CW No. 1848/92) decided on 4.9.1992, wherein Division Bench of this court took a similar view.

8. In view of the foregoing discussion, no relief can be granted to the petitioner for issuance of a duplicate certificate or of reimbursement. Counsel for the respondent reassures that in case a claim is made for proceeds of Indira Vikas Patras by presentation of originals, intimation would be sent to the petitioner in accordance with rules. The claimant would be required to furnish proof of its acquisition.

Writ petition is dismissed with these observations. It would be open then for the petitioner to avail of such legal remedies as available at law to show that the claimant is not entitled to the said Indira Vikas Patras and that it is the petitioner who is entitled to the proceeds.