VINOD BHAGWAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(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. 60,000.00 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. 1,20,000.00 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.) 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.