IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 1504 of 2003 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 19/06/2003 in WP NO : 6823 OF 1995 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, New Delhi. 2 The Post Master General, A.P., Circle, Hyderabad. 3 The Post Master General, Visakhapatnam Region, East Godavari District. 4 The Superintendent of Post Offices, Kakinada, East Godavari District. ..... APPELLANTS AND Yanemal Ramam, S/o. Surya Rao, Hindu, R/o. H.No. 7-9-41, Ramaraopet, Kakinada, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellants: Mr.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) Counsel for the Respondent : MR.N.SIVA REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.1504 of 2003 Oral Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 6823 of 1995, dated 19.6.2003, the Department filed the present appeal. The facts in brief are that the respondent/writ petitioner claims to have purchased twelve Indira Vikasa Patras, worth Rs.44,000/- on 26.6.1990 from the 4th appellant and kept them in the cup board of his house in his native village. The patras were to be matured by 26.6.1995. Owing to the heavy floods that were caused in the year 1990, the said patras were affected by white ants. It appears, when the respondent approached the appellant- authorities seeking issuance of duplicate patras, the authorities have refused to issue the same on the ground that there was no provision under the Rules for replacement of the destroyed and mutilated patras. Aggrieved, the respondent filed the aforementioned writ petition before the learned single Judge seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in refusing to issue duplicate certificates in place of mutilated and defaced ones, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Indira Vikasa Patra Rules, 1986, framed by the 1st respondent. A consequential direction was also sought for issuance of duplicate certificates forthwith in place of defaced and mutilated ones. However, when the aforementioned writ petition was taken up for hearing by the learned single judge, a representation was made before him by both the counsel that in a similar case in Writ Petition No. 21877 of 1997, a division Bench of this Court has disposed of that writ petition on 11.7.1997 with certain directions safeguarding the interest of the petitioner therein. In the instant case also, in view of the fact that the appellants did not deny about the factum of issuance of the patras in favour of the respondent and as there is no rival claim made by any third party for the patras in question, the learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition filed by the respondent also, through the order impugned in this appeal, with a direction to the appellants to cause paper publication in any one daily newspaper which has circulation in the village of A.V. Nagaram and Kakinada, East Godavari District with regard to the claim of the respondent inviting objections/claims if any, and if there are no rival claims made by any of the third parties with regard to the patras in question, within the time frame fixed in the publication, the appellants were directed to pay the maturity value of the patras in question to the respondent after deducting the expenses towards causing paper publication and subject to the respondent furnishing immovable property security to the value of the maturity amount. Aggrieved by the said order, the Department filed the present appeal. Sri A. Rajasekhar Reddy, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the appellants while relying on Rule 7(2) of the Indira Vikas Pratras Rules, 1986, has contended that a Certificate which is lost, stolen, mutilated, defaced or destroyed beyond recognition, will not be replaced by any of the post offices and the learned single judge erred in issuing a direction to the departmental authorities to pay the maturity value. He, therefore, prayed that the writ appeal be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. Indisputably, the appellants did not dispute or deny about the factum of issuance of the Indira Vikas Patras either before the learned single judge or before us. When that being the case, we are of the opinion that the appellants have to pay the maturity value of the patras in question to the respondent together with agreed interest instead of maturity amount alone, as directed by the learned single judge. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the appellants to pay the maturity value of the patras in question to the respondent together with agreed interest (as per the terms of the bonds), by obtaining necessary indemnity bond from him to the effect that in case at a later date it was found that he obtained the maturity amount by playing fraud or mis-representation, he would be liable to be prosecuted by the authorities for such mis-conduct and for recovery of the said amount. At this stage, Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that since there is an inordinate delay in payment of the maturity value, the appellants 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 appeal. We are not inclined to accept the said submission of the learned counsel. We, however, reserve liberty to the respondent to agitate the same before the appropriate Court. In so far as the direction issued by the learned single judge with regard to paper publication is concerned, both the appellants and the respondent are directed to cause paper publication with regard to the claim of the respondent in Andhra Jyothi Telugu daily of East Godavari District edition, within two weeks from today. There shall be a further direction to the appellants to pay the maturity value of the patras in question to the respondent as directed above, within four weeks from the date of publication of the paper notification. The writ appeal is accordingly disposed with the above directions. No costs. ___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J Date: 26th June, 2009 _________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J pnb