Madras High Court
The Post Master vs Pandi Priyanga on 25 January, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.126 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 25.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.126 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.317 of 2021
1.The Post Master,
Kovilpatti – 628 501,
Thoothukudi District.
2.The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Kovilpatti Division,
Kovilpatti – 628 501,
Thoothukudi District. : Appellants
Vs.
Pandi Priyanga : Respondent
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent as against the order
dated 30.01.2020 made in W.P.(MD)No.14593 of 2017.
For Appellants : Mr.P.Subbiah
Central Government Standing Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.S.Ramasamy
*****
1/7
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.126 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)
This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge, who
passed an order directing the appellants to pay a sum of Rs.6,98,673/-, which is
inclusive of amount deposited by the respondent along with her brother and post
maturity interest (PMI).
2. The respondent and her brother, while being minors, sought for opening
joint accounts by making deposit under the MIS Scheme. After attaining majority,
the respondent and her brother sought to close the 20 accounts, which were
opened jointly. Seven accounts were permitted to be closed and the total amount
along with the accrued interest were returned. However, the remaining accounts
were though closed, no amount was returned, in view of the audit objection which
was raised on the premise that a minor is entitled to open only one account and
therefore, there cannot be 20 joint accounts by two minors.
3. Upon noting the observations of the learned Single Judge, the learned
Counsel for the appellants sent an e-mail to the appellants and on receipt of the
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.126 of 2021
said e-mail dated 24.01.2020, he was accordingly informed about the dues payable
in tune with the scheme, which is for a sum of Rs.6,98,673/-, inclusive of bonus
and PMI upto 30.01.2020. On that basis, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ
petition by directing the aforesaid amount to be repaid.
4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that
it is a mistake on the part of the learned Single Judge to allow the writ petition as
if the Counsel has given consent. The Counsel has merely stated as to what has
passed in the minds of the learned Judge and therefore, no such consent was given.
In any case, law does not entitle the respondent from getting the bonus and PMI.
5. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that they do
not know anything about the terms and conditions of the scheme. It is the officials
of the appellants, who extended the benefits. The deposits have been made from
the year 2010 onwards. There was no formal cancellation of the scheme. After
releasing the amount while closing seven accounts, the remaining amount was not
paid, only because of the audit objection. There is no suppression of fact on the
part of the respondent in any case. The Counsel for the appellants did give consent
and that is the reason why the order was passed.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.126 of 2021
6. Law is quite settled that if an order is passed by consent, no appeal would
lie and the only remedy open to the party is to approach the Court contending
misconception.
7. After receiving the deposits right from the year 2010, the belated action,
as noted by the learned Single Judge, was only in pursuant to the audit objection.
The deposited amount, admittedly, belong to the respondent / writ petitioner and
her brother. No procedure has been followed towards the cancellation. No action
has been taken for recovering the wrong amount paid, except denying to pay the
remaining amount. It is only in pursuant to the legal notice issued, the respondent /
writ petitioner has been informed about the rule position. The respondent / writ
petitioner and her brother did not suppress anything. Admittedly, the appellants
knew that the respondent and her brother were minors at the time of opening the
account and therefore, they could have rejected the request for inclusion in the
scheme. On the contrary, they were allowed to deposit periodically and thereafter,
even gave the amount under the claim for about seven accounts.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.126 of 2021
8. Therefore, apart from the appeal being not maintainable, even on merits,
we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. If
the learned Counsel has clearly indicate the minds of the learned Single Judge that
he would award compensation, in the reply given, strangely, nothing has been
stated that the writ petitioners cannot be given any amount. On the contrary,
without giving any specific answers, which can be construed as an acceptance of
the suggestion made by the learned Single Judge, only the amount alone has been
indicated along with bonus and PMI. If the appellants were of the view that the
writ petitioner is not entitled, the same could have been indicated in the reply
dated 28.01.2020. In that eventuality, there is no need for giving the calculation by
adding the bonus and PMI.
9. The appellants ought not to have received any amount from the minors.
Under the Contract Act, an agreement with a minor is voidable on his instance.
Having received the money and letting the same to be deposited over the years, it
is too old in the day to contend to the contrary.
10. Thus, the appeal stands dismissed by confirming the order passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.14593 of 2017. The appellants shall pay the
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.126 of 2021
sum of Rs.6,98,673/- to the respondent / writ petitioner, as ordered by the learned
Single Judge, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index : Yes / No [M.M.S.,J.] [S.A.I.,J.]
Internet : Yes 25.01.2021
gk
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.126 of 2021
M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
AND
S.ANANTHI, J.
gk
W.A.(MD)No.126 of 2021
25.01.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
