S. Prabhavathi Vs. Superintendent of Post Office

S. Prabhavathi vs Superintendent of Post Office

Type Court Judgment Court Andhra Pradesh Decided Dec 11, 2003

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/444517

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/444517
Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judge: A. Gopal Reddy, J.
Decided On: Dec 11, 2003
Case Number: WP No. 11737 of 2003
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Civil - duplicate certificate - Rule 43 (3) of National Saving Certificate Rules, 1981 - allegation of unauthorized possession of investment certificates - application filed for duplicate certificate by rightful nominee of deceased investor disregarded by authorities - conduct of authorities seems dodging the matter...

Key legal issue: Civil
Acts & sections: National Saving Certificate Rules, 1981 - Rule 43(3)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

S. Prabhavathi

Advocate V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, Adv.

Respondent

Superintendent of Post Office

Advocate Deepak Bhattacharjee, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: National Saving Certificate Rules, 1981 - Rule 43(3)
Reported In: 2004(3)ALD149

Excerpt

.....schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the director or by any such boards, is included in the latter part of section 2(21), such boards will be of the level of the state board or the divisional board. the boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which primary schools are operating. thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. section 2(21) of the act defines the term recognised. the last clause therein is by any of such boards. the term such is defined in oxford dictionary as..........issue any duplicates to anybody. in the light of the instructions issued by the regional office, kurnool, the petitioner was informed that it would not be possible to issue duplicates and the original vikas patras are available with smt. indira devi and requested to obtain the same and prefer the claim.4. the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the provisions of sub-rule 3 of rule 43 of national savings certificates rules 1981, when once the petitioner informed that she is entitled to receive the amounts, the respondent is under obligation to issue notice to the unauthorized person in whose possession, the certificates are available, to the effect that a duplicate certificate will be issued unless he/she produces within a period of one month an order of a competent court restraining such an issue. without following the procedure contemplated under the above provisions, the respondent is dodging the matter.5. on the other hand, it is contended by the learned standing counsel for the respondent that since the certificates are not lost and the holder of the certificates, is not reporting the falling of the certificates in the hands of the unauthorized person, the department cannot issue such notice.6. admittedly, the investor and the other nominee died and that the petitioner alone is the nominee and she is entitled to receive the maturity amount. in this view of the matter, the respondent is directed to issue notice to the unauthorized person in whose possession, the vikas patras are available and act accordingly as contemplated under the provisions of sub-rule (3) of rule 43 of the national savings certificates rules, 1981. this exercise shall be completed within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.7. with the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. no costs.

Full Judgment

ORDER

A. Gopal Reddy, J.

1. The petitioner claims to be a nominee of two Kisan Vikas Patras of Rs. 50,000/- denomination each, deposited by her mother-in-law, late Smt. Subbalakshmi, on 30-5-1995, which would be matured by 30.9.2001.

2. It is stated that late Subbalakshmi obtained two Kisan Vikas Patras showing the petitioner and her father-in-law, late Anjaneyulu who is the husband of the investor, as nominees. Subsequently, her father-in-law died on 8-12-1995 and mother-in-law died on 14-7-1996, much prior to the maturity of the Kisan Vikas Patras. The petitioner went to her parents house in the month of January, 2001. At that time, the said Vikas Patras were taken away by the sister of her husband. A complaint was lodged by the petitioner to the police about the missing of Vikas Patras and also gold ornaments and the police after investigation, closed the same as a family dispute. When the petitioner approached the respondent seeking for issue of duplicate certificates, the respondent has not taken any action. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Legal Services Authority, Cuddapah before whom, the respondent filed the counter stating that Smt. Indira Devi, in whose possession, the Vikas Patras are available, is not the nominee and the petitioner alone is entitled to receive the maturity amount. On that, the Legal Services Authority disposed of the application directing the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum. In view of the same, the present writ petition is filed.

3. The respondent filed the counter admitting about the purchase of Kisan Vikas Patras by late Smt. Subbalakshmi in Cuddapah Head Post Office under registration Nos. 16660 and 16661 nominating the petitioner and her father-in-law who is the husband of the investor. One Smt. Indira Devi, divorced daughter of the investor through her representation informed the Post Master that she is having Kisan Vikas Patras bearing Nos. 461825 and 461825, dated 30-9-1995 in her custody and requested not to issue any duplicates to anybody. In the light of the instructions issued by the Regional Office, Kurnool, the petitioner was informed that it would not be possible to issue duplicates and the original Vikas Patras are available with Smt. Indira Devi and requested to obtain the same and prefer the claim.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that under the provisions of Sub-rule 3 of Rule 43 of National Savings Certificates Rules 1981, when once the petitioner informed that she is entitled to receive the amounts, the respondent is under obligation to issue notice to the unauthorized person in whose possession, the certificates are available, to the effect that a duplicate certificate will be issued unless he/she produces within a period of one month an order of a competent Court restraining such an issue. Without following the procedure contemplated under the above provisions, the respondent is dodging the matter.

5. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent that since the certificates are not lost and the holder of the certificates, is not reporting the falling of the certificates in the hands of the unauthorized person, the Department cannot issue such notice.

6. Admittedly, the Investor and the other nominee died and that the petitioner alone is the nominee and she is entitled to receive the maturity amount. In this view of the matter, the respondent is directed to issue notice to the unauthorized person in whose possession, the Vikas Patras are available and act accordingly as contemplated under the provisions of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 43 of the National Savings Certificates Rules, 1981. This exercise shall be completed within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

7. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

Same Court & Year Andhra Pradesh · 2003 Same Parties S. Prabhavathi vs Superintendent of Post Office Same Subject Civil Same Judge A. Gopal Reddy, J. Acts & Sections National Saving Certificate Rules, 1981 - Rule 43(3)

Civil