RAMESH CHANDRA BINJRAJKA SEC AND 3 V. UNION OF INDIA NEW DELHI AND 3

WP/2319/2002

AI Insights

The case involves petitioners who purchased Indira Vikas Patras, which were later found destroyed by termites. After unsuccessful attempts to obtain duplicate certificates and receive the maturity value from the respondents, the petitioners filed a writ petition. The court found that the respondents did not dispute the issuance of the certificates and acknowledged the petitioners' declarations in their income tax returns. Consequently, the court ordered the respondents to pay the maturity value with interest, subject to an indemnity bond from the petitioners.

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 724883 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 26-06-2009
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Indira Vikas Patras Rules, 1986
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: P SARADA
• Keywords: Arbitrary; Illegal; Income Tax Returns; Indemnity bond; Indira Vikas Patras; Interest; Irrational; Mandamus; Principal amount; Void; Duplicate Certificates; Maturity Value
• Section: 7(2)

Judgement Text

"THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 2319 of 2002 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) The petitioners filed the instant writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring Rule 7(2) of the Indira Vikas Patras Rules, 1986 framed by the Central Government as arbitrary, illegal, irrational and void. They also sought a consequential direction to the respondents to pay the entire principal amount along with interest in respect of the Indira Vikas Patras purchased by them, totalling to 318, as per the list appended to the writ petition. The facts in brief are that the 1st petitioner along with the other petitioners claimed to have purchased 400 Indira Vikasa Patras, amounting to Rs.20,00,000/- of Rs.5,000/- each, with distinctive IVP numbers in the year 1995 from the A.P.M.S.B.(HO), Secunderabad. Thereafter, the petitioners kept them in an wooden almairah in their house wrapped with a paper cover safely. However, when the petitioners opened the said almiarah at the time of white wash, to their surprise, they noticed that all the Indira Vikas Patras kept in that almairah were destroyed and eaten away by white ants. Thereafter, they approached the 4th respondent on 27.12.1997 requesting him to issue duplicate certificates and also furnished the photo copies of the certificates eaten away by white ants. The 4th respondent expressed his inability for issuance of duplicate certificates. However, after exchange of long correspondence between the authorities and the petitioners, the respondents seemed to have issued some cheques on 12.2.2001 in respect of 82 certificates. Thereafter, the petitioners through letter dated 23.2.2001, again requested the 4th respondent to issue duplicate certificates in respect of the remaining 318 certificates by bringing to his notice about the declaration of those certificates in the income tax returns made vide declaration nos. 273216, 273209,273211,273205. The matter was carried upto the Ministry of Finance and during the course of consideration of the petitioners’ case, the Ministry of Finance seemed to have called for the income tax returns of the petitioners. Subsequently, the Ministry of Finance rejected the request of the petitioners and the same was communicated to the petitioners on 4.1.2002. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. Heard Sri Dinesh Chandra Binjrajaka, party-in-person and Smt.P. Sarada, Addl. Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing on behalf of the respondents. Indisputably, the respondents did not dispute or deny about the factum of issuance of the Indira Vikas Patras in favour of the petitioners. That apart, the petitioners have also declared the patras in question in the Income Tax declarations filed by them during the year 1995. When that being the case, we are of the opinion that the respondents have to pay the maturity value of the patras in question to the petitioners together with the agreed rate of interest. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the respondents to pay the maturity value of the patras in question to the petitioners together with the agreed rate of interest (as per the terms of the bonds), by obtaining necessary indemnity bond from the petitioners to the effect that in case at a later date it was found that they obtained the maturity amount by playing fraud or mis- representation from the respondents, they would be liable to be prosecuted by the respondent-authorities for such mis-conduct and for recovery of the said amount. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since there is an inordinate delay in payment of the maturity value, the respondents may be directed to pay interest on the maturity value from the date of maturity of the certificates till the date of disposal of the present writ petition. We are not inclined to accept the said submission of the learned counsel. We, however, reserve liberty to the respondents to agitate the same before the appropriate Court. Further, the petitioners as well as the respondents are directed to cause paper publication with regard to the claim of the petitioners in Indian Express English daily of Hyderabad edition within two weeks from today. There shall be a further direction to the respondents to pay the maturity value of the patras in question to the petitioners as directed above, within four weeks from the date of publication of the paper notification. The writ petition is accordingly disposed with the above directions. No costs. ___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J Date: 26th June, 2009 _________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J pnb "