1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10038 of 2010 1] Ankush Das Bhalerao Age 58 years, Occ Service as Construction Supervisor, MSEB, R/o. Murud, Tq. & Dist. Latur. 2] Shalini w/o. Ankush Bhalerao Age 54 years, Occ .Household R/o. Murud, Tq. & Dist, Latur. Petitioners Versus 1] The Union of India through the Chief Postmaster General Maharashtra Circle, 2nd Floor, Mumbai GPO Old Building, Mumbai- 400 001 2] The Postmaster Latur Head Post Office Latur. 3] The Deputy Post Master Murud, Tq. Dist. Murud. Respondents Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General ,for respondents. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & A.A. SAYED, JJ.. DATE : 22nd OCTOBER, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER B.R. GAVAI, J.] : 2 1] Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2] The petition arises out of peculiar facts and circumstances. The petitioners have deposited an amount of Rs. 6 Lakhs by way of a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) with the respondent No.2. The said deposit is made on 29th April, 2010.One of the sons of the petitioners, namely, Dhammanand is suffering from renal failure and requires immediate kidney transplant. Another son of the petitioners namely, Buddhanand, is donating his kidney to his brother. The Hospital where the Kidney Transplant is to be done, i.e. Ruby Hall Clinic, has done all the investigations and arranged the Kidney Transplant on 1st November, 2010. For the said transplant, an amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- is required. The said amount is to be deposited prior to the operation. However, since as per the POSB Manual Rules, withdrawal from the FDR, for a period of one year is not permissible, the respondents are not permitting the same. Hence, this petition. 4] In the extraordinary circumstance, that in the absence of the amount being deposited the Kidney Transplant may not take place, we are required to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5] The petitioners have stated in the petition, that out of Rs. 4.50,000/-, they would make an arrangement of Rs.1.50,000/- and out of Rs. 6,00,000/- deposited with the respondent No.2 by way of FDR, they may be permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. 6] Shri Sharma, the learned Assistant Solicitor General, on instructions states that in view of the specific rule, which prohibits withdrawal of the amount for a period of one year from the date of deposit, the respondents are not in a position to permit withdrawal of the amount. 3 7] As already stated hereinabove, since the amount deposited with the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is of the petitioners, and if the amount is not immediately made available, the very life of their son may come in danger, we are inclined to allow the petition. However, since we are permitting withdrawal of the amount in exceptional circumstances, we also will have to issue directions that the amount of interest on the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- will be forgone by the petitioners. 8] Rule is made absolute by directing the respondents to permit withdrawal of an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- deposited by the petitioners by way of Fixed Deposit Receipt , on or prior to 26th October, 2010. Such amount of premature withdrawal which we are permitting would not carry any interest and interest on the same shall stand forfeited. However, it is clarified that so far as the remaining amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- is concerned, it would earn the interest as per the scheme. 9] An authenticated copy of this judgment be given to Shri Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General, who will intimate it to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and ensure payment of the amount to the petitioners, by 26th October, 2010. [A.A. SAYED,J] [B.R. GAVAI,J.] grt/wp