MANJULA P SHAH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents, i.e. Government of India, Regional Director, Gujarat Region National Savings Organisation and the Deputy Regional Director of the said organisation at Ahmedabad to renew the petitioner's agency under "Mahila Pradhan Kshetriya Bachat Yojana ('Yojana' or 'Scheme' for brevity) with effect from 7.3.1996 onwards.

(2.) The Government of India had launched a scheme called Mahila Pradhan Kshetriya Bachat Yojana with effect from 1.4.1972 in order to, interalia, educate the housewives and secure investments, raise resources for financing development and defence of the country. Under the said scheme, amongst others, an individual woman of any locality can be appointed, upon recommendation of the District Savings Officer of the area, as an authorised agent leader for that particular locality. The petitioner applied for becoming the agent leader in the year 1981 and, accordingly, respondent No.2 appointed the petitioner as the agent leader for Idar area vide certificate dated 7.3.1981. An agreement to that effect was also executed between the petitioner and respondent No.1, and the said agreement has been signed by respondent No.2 on behalf of respondent No.1. The petitioner, accordingly, started functioning as the agent under the Scheme within Idar area. The petitioner was functioning as per the guidelineas and terms and conditions of the scheme, and the petitioner was being paid commission on the savings secured by the petitioner and deposited with the respondents.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that in the second week of December 1995, the petitioner was called by the Post Master, Idar, and was informed that as per the letter/circular issued by the respondent-authorities, the petitioner was required to apply for renewal of the Yojana agency every three years, and the petitioner was, accordingly, advised to apply immediately. Even though the said condition was not a part of the agreement, the petitioner applied for renewal of her agency to respondent Nos 2 and 3 on 12.12.1995, and by letter dated 18.1.1996 respondent No.3 granted the renewal of agency. A copy of the said renewal letter dated 18.1.1996 is produced at Annexure "B" to the petition which reads as under: Dtd.18.1.96