IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2010 / 22ND SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 20200 of 2010(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- POONITHURA SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD, NO. E 840, POONITHURA.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - PIN-682 038, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VARGHESE.K.Y, AGED 47, S/O.YACUB. BY ADV. SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. SRI.P.J.VINOD JOSEPH SRI.P.G.GOPALAKRISHNAN UNNITHAN SRI.VARUGHESE M EASO RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE POST MASTER, POST OFFICE, MARADU, MARADU PANCHAYATH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, ERNAKULAM POSTAL DIVISION, ERNAKULAM-682 011. 3. UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, NEW DELHI. ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDIA FOR R1TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.20200 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 13th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a co-operative society. They have invested money in the Kisan Vikas Patras (KVPs) for a face value of Rs.2,01,500/-. Their grievance in this writ petition is that even after the date of maturity, the amounts due to the petitioner under the KVPs are not being disbursed to the petitioner. 2. The learned Assistant Solicitor General submits that the petitioner being a co-operative society is not entitled to hold KVPs as per the rules applicable and since the issue of the KVPs itself is illegal, the petitioner is entitled to only the face value and not the maturity value. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. I do not think that the respondents can take such a contention at this point of time. If, as per the rules, a co-operative society is not eligible to hold KVPs, the respondents could very well have refused to issue the same to the petitioner. But having issued the KVPs and having used the money of the petitioner for themselves depriving the petitioner of the use of their money, I do not think that the respondents can now take a contention that they will pay only the face value and not the maturity value. In fact they have held on to the w.p.c.20200/10 2 money for the entire period of deposit without even taking any attempt to return the money to the petitioner. Therefore, even assuming that the petitioner is not entitled to hold KVPs, since the respondents have used the petitioner's money, the respondents are bound to compensate the petitioner for the same. Therefore, I am satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to full maturity value of the certificates including interest. This shall be paid to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge