Judgment:
1. One Shri Chandrakant B. Patel, claiming to be a senior citizen, as is mentioned in the Notice issued through advocate Shri Prashant K. Kapadia, is before this Court praying that order dated 31^st August 2010, passed by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Vadodara West division, Vadodara be quashed and set aside.
2. The facts of the case are that, the petitioner, through his wife, invested amount on various dates in Kisan Vikas Patra (hereinafter referred to 'KVP'), details of these investments are set out in a tabular form, produced at Annexure 'B', page 11 to this petition. The amount invested totals to Rs.2,80,000/-, which will be Rs.5,60,000/- on maturity. What is important is that, the wife of the petitioner was the 'SAS' 'agent' for collecting the deposits under various schemes of Post Office. Through her, the petitioner - husband deposited aforesaid amount in KVP with the Post Office authorities.
2.1 The learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon a decision of this Court in the matter of Mahila Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. Chief Post Master, reported in 2007 (2) GLR 945, wherein this Court held that, 'in view of the fact that there is a binding decision in the matter of KVP itself, the present petition is allowed'. The Court was pleased to direct the respondent, 'to pay the amount of KVPs, purchased by the petitioner bank, with interest at the current bank rate of interest from the day it became payable till the date of realization'. (emphasis supplied)
2.2 The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that, in light of the said decision and the decision of the Division Bench referred to in the said judgment, this petition deserves to be allowed.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Buch for the respondents submitted that the decision, relied upon by the petitioner, is distinguishable mainly on two grounds, firstly, the entity, who purchased KVP in the decision, which is sought to be relied upon, was a 'cooperative bank', as is clear from the name of the petitioner 'Mahila Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd.' The learned advocate for the respondent authority submitted that, any such entity is to operate through human agency and the factor of 'honesty' of the entity itself was definitely not in question and therefore, the Court, giving benefit of doubt to that entity, allowed the petition and directed the authority to pay the amount to the petitioner with interest at the current rate of interest from the day it became payable.
3.1 The learned advocate for the respondent authority submitted that in the case on hand, the amount is deposited by one 'individual' Shri Chandrakant B. Patel, that too, through his wife who was 'SAS' agent. He is now claiming that he has deposited that amount as a 'Karta of HUF'. The learned advocate, therefore, submitted that the object of depositing this amount is nothing else than earning more interest than the interest which could have been earned by depositing the amount in a bank.
3.2 The learned advocate for the respondent authority submitted that secondly, in the case on hand, the wife of the petitioner, through whom the amount is deposited in KVPs, is the 'SAS' agent. The wife of the petitioner being 'SAS' agent, is supposed to know the policy of the Government and also supposed to know the restrictions/limitations of the schemes. The learned advocate for the respondent authorities submitted that prior to 1995, under Rule 5 of the KVP Rules, 1988, it was possible for the 'juristic person' to purchase KVP. But w.e.f. 1^st April 1995, the Rules of 1988 stood amended. A banking company, a company, a corporation, an association, institution or body registered as a society under any law for the time being in force, a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (9 of 1932), a local authority, a cooperative society/ bank/ institution registered as such under any law for the time being in force could have purchased KVP was done away with. After, 1^st April 1995, only 'individual' could purchase KVP. Amended Rule 6 provides for Types of Certificates and issue thereof. In Sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 at sr. no. (ii) it is provided that, 'a Trust can purchase KVP', but later on, even 'Trust' is omitted. This omission is effected w.e.f. 13^th May 2005. The learned advocate for the respondent authority submitted that under the Rules, 'HUF' could not have purchased KVP in the year 2003 to 2005 or thereafter.
3.3 The learned advocate for the respondent authority submitted that this fact is found to be known to the wife of the petitioner because she was working as an 'SAS' 'agent'. Had it been a case of investment by any stranger, he could have pleaded his innocence or ignorance. But, in the present case, even this argument is not available to the petitioner.
3.4 The learned advocate for the respondent authority submitted that assuming for the sake of argument, without admitting that the petitioner is putting forward a bona fide claim, then, he can at the most claim for the interest, either at the rate of Savings Bank Account or the rate available on KVP only, till the date when he was intimated about the 'irregular issuance of KVP' by letter dated 1^st September 2008, a copy of which is produced at Annexure 'C', page 12. But then the petitioner, with full knowledge about the flaw, is trying to push forward his claim. After this letter was issued by the authority, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 9183 of 2010, which came to be disposed of by this Court (Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice HK Rathod) by order dated 9^th August 2010. The entire order is reproduced for the ready perusal:
"1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. AY Kogje for petitioner.
4. Rs.10,000.00 each. On 1.9.2010, letter of respondent No.2 regarding issuance of KVP received by petitioner and thereafter, petitioner makes representation on 1^st October, 2008 to department but no response is received by petitioner from department and, therefore, through advocate, detailed notice has been served by petitioner to respondents dated 1^st March, 2010. Date of maturity of such KVP is 27^th October, 2011 to 21.2.2014. Notice at page 12 addressed to the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Vadodara West Division, Fatehgunj, Vadodara-390002 has remained unanswered and no reply has been given. Therefore, present petition has been filed by petitioner.
5. Therefore, in this back ground, it is directed to the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Vadodara West Division, Fatehgunj, Vadodara-390002 to consider legal notice dated 10^th March, 2010 served by petitioner through his advocate and examine grievance raised by petitioner and also to consider decision which has been relied upon by petitioner and then to pass appropriate reasoned order in accordance with law within period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of present order and communicate decision to petitioner immediately.
6. In view of these observations and directions, this petition is disposed of by this court without expressing any opinion on merits. D.S.P."
7. The learned advocate for the respondent authority submitted that it is thereafter that the matter was considered by the authorities and after careful consideration, the authorities have passed order on 31^st August 2010, which is challenged by filing a fresh petition (present petition). The learned advocate for the respondent authority submitted that the bona fides are lacking on the part of the petitioner, as is clear from the fact that, even by impugned order, the authorities did give him an opportunity for accepting the payment with interest at the rate of Savings Bank Account or the KVP rate. But, instead of responding to the same, the petitioner has chosen to approach this Court. The insistence of the petitioner is that the amount must be paid as per the scheme i.e. on the maturity of the certificates, details which are set out in the order impugned, in the last column of the table, which is a part of the operating part of the order.
8. The Court has given full consideration to the submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioner. The Court has also perused the judgment relied upon by the learned advocate for the petitioner. The Court has also once again considered the observations made by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 2877 of 2003 and also the observations made by the Division Bench in its judgment, reported in 'Unreported Judgment' section of the GLH i.e. 2006 (1) GLH (UJ) 1. The Court is of the opinion that the said decisions are of no help to the petitioner and therefore, no relief, as prayed for, can be granted to the petitioner. The petition, having found without any substance, is dismissed. Notice is discharged.
9. At the request of learned advocate for the petitioner it is clarified that non-entertainment of this petition should not prejudicially affect the petitioner in the event the petitioner exercises either of the option, which is offered by the respondent authority by the impugned order.