AMITABH KUMAR RUNGTA and ANOTHER V. UNION OF INDIA and 3 OTHERS

WRIC/1936/2016

AI Insights

The case involves Amitabh Kumar Rungta and another petitioner against the Union of India and three others, concerning the mismanagement and erroneous handling of their Public Provident Fund (PPF) accounts during a digitization process. The petitioners sought various writs including mandamus for rectification of account details and payment of dues, and certiorari to quash an impugned notice that halted payments. The core issue revolved around the incorrect recording of account holder details during digitization, which led to the denial of access and transactions in the petitioners' accounts. Despite multiple representations and legal notices, the respondents failed to rectify the errors promptly, leading to the filing of this writ petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 722164 (HC-UTTAR_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2019
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: RTI Act 2005
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: A S G I ADVOCATE; GYAN PRAKASH; RAVI SRIVASTAVA; S C ADVOCATE
• Assessee Lawyers: TAPISH RASTOGI; VINOD RASTOGI
• Keywords: Certiorari; Certiorari; Mandamus; Natural Justice; PPF Account; Digitization Error

Judgement Text

"Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1936 of 2016 Petitioner :- Amitabh Kumar Rungta And Another Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Tapish Rastogi,Vinod Kumar Rastogi Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Gyan Prakash,Ravi Prakash Srivastava,S.C. Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents. Petitioners have preferred the present writ petition with the following prayers:- \"i) issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to rectify PPF Account bearing A/C No. 1180171, 1180497 and 1180498 separately in the name of petitioners HUF and make the payment along with interest as the period is completed after it's maturity. ii) issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to make transaction in A/c No. 1180497 and 1180498. iii) issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned notice dated 15.09.2015 issue by respondent nos. 3 and 4 though the same P.P.F. Accounts are matured, whereby stopped the payment of PPF A/c No. 1180171 (New Account No. 0212025510). iv) issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay damages to the petitioner. v) issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. vi) award the cost of this petition against the respondents.\" Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the petitioners and their father have opened separate P.P.F. Account in the post office, Deoria as Karta Amitabh Rungta and Sanjay Rungta bearing A/c No. 1180497 & 1180498 respectively in the month of March 1993. During the process of digitization of the records of the petitioners' A/c the respondents committed a grave error without giving any notice to the petitioners and they incorporated the name of only one account holder in respect of all the three accounts i.e. Purshottam Das Rungta the father of the petitioners. Thereafter petitioners went to the office of respondents on 26.03.2012 to make certain deposits in their respective PPF Account but the respondents did not allow the petitioners to make necessary deposits on their accounts, on the ground of the said account being unauthorized. On 24.04.2012 petitioners wrote a letter to respondent no. 4 wherein the entire facts have been stated about all accounts of Hindu Undivided Family and it is further stated that all the three accounts are of different identities and duly assessed by the Income Tax Department. However, the respondents failed to give any satisfactory reply, despite of repeated reminders sent by the petitioners. Thereafter petitioner no. 1 sent legal notice to the respondents on 19.03.2013. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that respondents even after lapse of substantial time neither replied to the aforesaid legal notice nor made the necessary correction in respect of P.P.F. Accounts of the petitioners. Thereafter petitioners sought query under the R.T.I. Act 2005. Petitioners received information under the R.T.I. Act, 2005 i.e. letter dated 27.11.2013 along-with letters dated 09.12.2011 and 16.03.2011, in which first time petitioners got the knowledge of error committed by the respondents in respect of three PPF Accounts of the petitioners and in all three accounts it was wrongly mentioned as one of Purshottam Das Rungta. Aggrieved against the aforesaid reply, petitioners made a number of representations before respondents on 23.04.2014, 15.10.2014 and 21.01.2015, through registered post, followed with online complaints with a request to rectify the mistake committed by the respondents during the process of digitization of records, copies of which are appended as Annexure-10 to the writ petition. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, audit objection was raised after 11 years later from opening of P.P.F. Account and same objection was decided exparte behind the back of the petitioners, which is against the principle of natural justice and same cannot be sustainable in the eye of law. Aggrieved against the Act of the respondents, petitioners filed writ petition before this Hon'ble Court bearing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10278 of 2015 in which the following order was passed on 25.02.2015:- \"Heard counsel for the petitioners Sri Vinod Kumar Rastogi and Sri Siddharth Saran Advocate for respondents. On the matter being taken up today, petitioners' grievances is that P.P.F. Account bearing account no.1180171, 1180497 and 1180498 are separate accounts and their submission is that at the time when digitalization exercise has been undertaken, then single name of account holders has been mentioned in all three P.P.F. Accounts. The petitioners faced with such a situation have made repeated representations on 23.4.2014, 15.10.2014 and 21.01.2015. Consequently, in the facts of the case, the Post Master General, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur is directed to look into the grievances of the petitioners in accordance with law preferably within next three months, after calling for relevant documents from Head Post Master, Deoria, U.P. and whatever is outcome of the same, shall be communicated to the petitioners. Subject to aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed of.\" Thereafter petitioners have filed all the relevant records and material of the aforesaid separate PPF Accoutns along with certified copy of the order dated 25.02.2015 passed by another Coordinate Bench of this Court before the respondents. By the letter dated 01.05.2015 respondent no. 4 admitted that the mistake was committed by their department during the process of digitization, copy of which is appended as Annexure-12 to this writ petition. Again respondent no. 4 send letter dated 30.06.2015 to the petitioners giving information to collect payment of the PPF Account Nos. 1180171, 1180497 and 180498 and payment shall be made after getting the sanction from the office of Chief Accounts Officer, Lucknow, copy of which is appended as annexure-13 to the writ petition. Thereafter petitioners approached the Head Post Office Deoria to collect the amount of P.P.F., bearing Account Nos. 1180171 and 1180497 but the payment was denied by the respondent no. 4 compelling the petitioners to write to the respondent no. 3. Again Superintendent, Post Office, Deoria send letter through post to the petitioners to collect the money of the aforesaid two PPF Accounts, vide letter dated 21.07.2015, copy of which is appended as annexure-14 to the writ petition. It is further submitted that petitioners were surprised and shocked to receive impugned notice/letter dated 15.09.2015, coming out with new facts refusing to make payment of PPF Account No. 1180171 (New No. 0212025510) stating totally wrong facts. However, the respondent no. 4, Head Postmaster, Deoria has admitted and agreed after verification in their letters dated 28.04.2015, 30.06.2015 and 27.07.2015, that HUF Account No. 1180171 and Account No. 1180497 are true and correct and directed the petitioners to collect the payment of the PPF amount. Impugned notice dated 15.09.2015 was served on the petitioners on 08.10.2015 and the detailed reply was submitted on 15.10.2015, stating the true and correct facts along-wth update Income Tax Returns and copy of the Bank Accounts etc, copy of the reply to the notice dated 15.10.2015 is annexed as Annexure-16 to the writ petition. Heard learned counsel for the parties. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the present writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage itself. In view of above, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, we disposed of this writ petition with liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh comprehensive representation ventilating all their grievance before respondent no. 5, Superintendent of Post Office, Division Deoria along with certified copy of this order. In case any such representation is filed by the petitioners before the respondent no. 5, he shall consider and decide the same by a speaking and reasoned order as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of filing of such representation by the petitioners before him. Order Date :- 30.10.2019 Swati "