VISHNU DUTT SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS wanted to avail benefit of a scheme run by the Department of post. This is known as monthly income scheme. Petitioners had deposited a total amount of Rs. 10,80,000/ -. As per the petitioners they were given interest in accordance with the scheme for some period. Thereafter, respondents formed a view that amount which could be deposited under the monthly income scheme is not to exceed Rs. 4.08 lakhs in a joint account and Rs. 2.04 lakhs in an individual account. Taking note of this fact amount to the extent of Rs. 4.08 lakhs was retained by the Post office and remaining amount was refunded. While making refund the respondents deducted a sum of Rs. 1,62,305/ - and also another amount of Rs. 25350/ -. Petitioners have come to this court. It is stated that the amount having been accepted by the respondents and the petitioners being not in any way made any misrepresentation cannot be put to disadvantageous position.

(2.) STAND taken by the respondents is that under the Monthly income Scheme in an individual account, maximum amount which could be deposited was to the, extent of Rs. 2.04 lakhs and in a joint account it was to the extent of Rs 4.08 lakhs. As petitioners had deposited an amount which was in excess of the permissible amount they were not entitled to the interest. Interest paid to the petitioners on the excess amount has been withdrawn and the remaining amount has been returned. The stand of the respondents is that the petitioner were entitled to interest under the scheme only on a sum of Rs 4.08 lakhs. It is submitted that on the remaining amount deposited in excess petitioners were not entitled to any interest at all. It is accordingly submitted that the amount was refunded and while do so interest which could not be paid under the scheme has not been paid. Commission paid to the agents has also been deducted. It is this aspect of the matter which is challenged: - - (i) it is submitted there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioners. (ii) that the amounts were got deposited through the same agent with the same post office. (iii) that the deposits made through an agent would bind the principal. (iv) that it was at that time when the deposit was made the respondents should have examined as to whether amount is to be accepted or not.

(3.) IT is thus submitted that after having kept the amount for more than two years petitioners could not be deprived of the interest component. It is accordingly submitted that till amount remained with the Respondents the petitioners are entitled to interest. Respondents, however, submit that what has been done has been done in the exercise of the power conferred on them under the Para 5 of the Monthly Income Account Scheme. For facility of reference relevant paragraph are being quoted below: - 5 (13) Opening of MIS Account -obtaining of declaration from the depositor -At the time of investment in a MIS Account a declaration may be obtained from the depositor in the account opening from (SB -3) to the effect that his deposits in all the accounts taken together do not exceed the prescribed limits. (Rule 159 (l) of POSB Manual Volume -I and D.G Posts letter No 50 -1/97 -SB dated 4.7.1997. 14. Deposits in excess of prescribed limits in MIS accounts: If it is noticed by the post office that the depositor has opened more than one account either in the same post office or in different post offices and exceeded the prescribed limit of deposits the accounts which exceed the limit will be treated as irregular accounts. These accounts will be got closed without interest and interest already paid will be received/adjusted. The commission paid to the agent on these irregular accounts will also be recovered."