PATEL HARISHBHAI BHANUBHAI Vs. CHIEF POST MASTER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners, two in number, are sons of late Mr. Bhanubhai B. Patel and late Mrs. Kamuben Bhanubhai Patel who subscribed to the public provident fund where they were permitted to open PPF Account No.337 in General Post Office at Ahmedabad on 28-3-1987. The deceased continued to make subscriptions to the above account from year to year and interest on the subscriptions was credited in the said account from time to time. The pass book of the said PPF account is annexed at Annexure A to the petition. Both the account holders unfortunately expired in an accident on 13-11-1999. The petitioners, who are both sons of the deceased, obtained succession certificate dated 24-4-2000 from the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad in Civil Misc. Application No.1007 of 1999. The petitioners then submitted an application dated 11/15-5-2000 to the respondent -Chief Post Master General, G.P.O., Ahmedabad along with the death claim form, death certificate, succession certificate and PPF pass book. As required by the respondent, the petitioners also submitted the claim application for settlement of PPF account of the depositors where the claim is preferred on legal evidence of heirship. In view of compliance with all the formalities, the petitioners were expecting to be paid the amount lying to the credit of their deceased parents in the above PPF account with interest thereon till the date of payment. However, the respondent addressed a letter dated 10-10-2000 (Annexure D) stating that claim application of the petitioners was returned back because the said PPF account was initially opened irregularly and that the petitioners could close the said PPF account without interest as the account was initially opened in contravention of the Rules. It is the aforesaid communication which is under challenge in this petition.

(2.) In response to the notice, affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the respondent, Chief Post Master, General Post Office, Ahmedabad contending that opening of the account was irregular and was in violation of section 4 of Public Provident Fund Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). The same is quoted hereunder:

(3.) In response to the query from the Court, Mr. Bipin I Mehta, learned Additional Standing Counsel for Union of India, states that such rate could be lower than the rate of interest available to the other subscribers of PPF accounts.