AMAR NIRANJAN BHATT Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner no.1 is the husband of the petitioner no.2. By filing this petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of necessary writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to the respondents to pay to the petitioners the amount lying in P.P.F. Account No. 3740/29 which is in the name of late Agastya, the minor son of the petitioners who unfortunately died an accidental death. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are the parents of deceased Agastya. The petitioner no.1 as the father and natural guardian of his minor son Agastya had opened a PPF Account No.3740/29 in the name of Agastya Amar Bhatt. A Saving Bank Account No.12828 was also opened in the name of minor Agastya which was operated by the petitioner no.1 as father and natural guardian of his son. A copy of the Passbook bearing Account No. 3740/29 issued by the respondent no.2 for the aforesaid P.P.F. Account is annexed at Annexure B to the petition.

(2.) Unfortunately, the said child Agastya died on 19.10.2001 in an accident in the City Gold Complex which is situated on Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. At the time of his untimely death, he was only 13 months and 8 days old. His death certificate is also annexed as Annexure C to the petition. The petitioners thereafter gave an application on 6.12.2001 (which is annexed at Annexure D to the petition) requesting the respondent no.2 to close Savings Bank Account No. 11828 and also transfer the balance lying in the PPF Account of minor Agastya to Saving Bank Account No. 11844, which account is also in the same Bank. The petitioners however were informed by the respondent no.2 that the amount lying in the PPF Account of minor Agastya is Rs.100283.00 and that since it is more than Rs.1 lac, the amount cannot be given to the petitioners without the production of succession certificate, especially when there was no nomination made at the time of opening of the said Account. The petitioner no.1 thereafter wrote a letter dated 4.2.2002 which was addressed to the Branch Manager of the respondent no.2 bank. He pointed out that the PPF Account of his minor son was operated by the petitioner no.1 as father and natural guardian. The petitioner no.1 also pointed out that he wants to utilise the amount lying in PPF Account of his son for a charitable purpose. He requested that needful may be done at the earliest for the purpose of transferring the same. In the said letter, the petitioner clearly pointed out that he is willing to waive an amount of Rs.283.00 out of total amount of Rs.100283.00 which is lying in his son's PPF Account. It is required to be noted that the insistence of succession certificate was due to the fact that since the amount involved in the account is more than Rs.1 lac, such succession certificate was necessary as per the Rules. In that view of the matter, the petitioner pointed out that even he is willing to waive amount which is additional amount to Rs.1 lac and accordingly requested that Rs.1 lac may be transferred to his Saving Bank Account. The petitioner also further pointed out that the petitioner no.1 being the father and natural guardian, the question of nomination did not arise. In spite of the aforesaid fact wherein the petitioner says that they are forgoing the amount of Rs.283.00 and only Rs. 1 lac be transferred to their Account, yet the respondent no.2 insisted for production of succession certificate. However, since the bank did not accede to the request of the petitioners, the petitioners are ultimately compelled to approach this Court by way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) At the time of hearing of his petition, it was argued by Shri A.S.Vakil, Ld. Advocate appearing for the petitioners that it is not in dispute that the petitioners are the parents of deceased Agastya. Mr.Vakil also further pointed out that production of succession certificate in respect of his minor child who was hardly 13 months and 8 days old involves too much of harassment and complications. He also further argued that production of succession certificate in case of death of a minor cannot be insisted. He also further pointed out that nomination is not permitted in case of minors, especially when the account was all throughout operated by the father as a natural guardian.