Judgment:
V.K. Bali, J.
1. All that petitioners want through present petition filed by them is to direct respondents 2 and 3 to issue a receipt of reinvestment of Indra Vikas Patra to petitioner No. 1 Vinod Bhagwan.
2. Brief facts of the case reveal that Government of India launched a scheme by framing Indira Vikas Patra Rules, 1986, under the provisions of Government Savings Certificates Act, 1959. Under the Scheme various certificates were issued which doubled in 5/5-1/2 years. Petitioners invested Rs. 60,000/- in Indira Vikas Patra Scheme in 1989. The said Indira Vikas Patra Certificates were to mature on 5.8.1994 and 9.8.1994. After realising the amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- on 30.8.1994, petitioner No. 1 reinvested the same by purchasing fresh Indira Vikas Patra Certificates for Rs. 1,20,000/-. A provisional receipt was issued but in the name of Sushil Kumar on the same day. However, when petitioner No. 1 went to collect Indira Vikas Patra Certificates, respondents insisted for presentation of Sushil Kumar. On 30.8.1994 petitioner made representation and even offered to execute an indemnity bond to the effect that if any Sushil Kumar claimed amount, respondents wit! be indemnified. Despite that a cryptic and non-speaking order was passed on 8.6.1995 rejecting the representation of the petitioner. Thereafter, before coming to this Court, petitioner made repeated requests to respondents for the receipt but the same was refused.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends and which contention is not disputed that Indira Vikas Patras are like bearer cheques and can be encashed by the bearer irrespective of the fact as to who had purchased such certificates. The claim of the petitioner is, however, being denied on the ground that on 1.9.1994 the statement of petitioner No. 1 was recorded wherein he categorically admitted that the IVPs tendered for encashment on 30.8.1994 presented by him were signed by Sushil Kumar, N-96, Greater Kailash, new Delhi, whose present whereabouts were not -known to him. He further stated that Sushil Kumar was previously residing at the said address and that he sent those certificates to his friend V.K. Sethi, J-55, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi, for seeking encashment and investment in IVP Certificates and the certificates are not signed by him nor bore his address. He further stated that due to shortage of sum of rupees one lac. with the clerk of counter No. 2 in the office, IVPs were kept in the office for investigation and were, therefore, not given to him. He further stated that he was simply an agency to receive payment of these IVPs and to further invest them and that he would apprise the officers of the exact address of Sushil Kumar, actual holder and V.K. Sethi, for conforming the genuineness and collection of the IVPs on their behalf and physical appearance, if possible in the post office. On the basis of the statement made by the petitioner, it is further the case of the respondents that the petitioners do not deserve indulgence by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as per the statement made by petitioner No. 1 himself.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case. We are of the view that once it is admitted position that IVPs are like bearer cheques and can be encashed by anyone, the respondent-authorities run no risk whatsoever in either encashing IVPs by the bearer or issuing him receipt on his reinvesting in the said Patras. In any ease, once the petitioner No. 1 had undertaken to execute an indemnity bond as mentioned above, whatever little risk might have been there the same was covered.
5. Let petitioner No. 1 execute the indemnity bond as undertaken by him and the moment it is done, the respondents postal authorities shall forthwith issue receipt to petitioner No. 1 with regard to reinvestment of IVPs in question. The receipt whenever issued shall be deemed to be on a date when IVPs were reinvested. This writ is, thus allowed.