IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 5004 of 2010(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SOMINI UDAYAN, W/O.UDAYAN, UDESH COTTAGE, PANAVELY P.O. KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH BABU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE POST MASTER GENERAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUB POST MASTER, VALAKAM, KOTTARAKKARA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SAVINGS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL SAVINGS, KOLLAM. 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, VETTIKAVALA, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI FOR R1-2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.5004 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the refusal of the second respondent to receive the deposits made by her under the Mahila Pradan Khatriyas Bachana Yojna under the National Savings Scheme. The petitioner is a Mahila Pradan Agent in the department of National Savings at Sub Post Office, Valakam in Kollam. Ext.P1 is the copy of the memo and proceedings by the Block Development Officer in the matter. Ext.P2 is the copy of the agreement executed. According to the petitioner, appointment was renewed from time to time and now the period of appointment stands valid up to 9/5/2012. The petitioner dutifully is collecting money from depositors and is remitting the same in the concerned post office namely the Sub Post Office, Valakam without fail. According to the petitioner the present officer has denied the facility to remit the amount in the account. It is in these circumstances, this writ petition has been filed. 2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is mainly contended that various irregularities in the account have been detected. There were several complaints W.P.(C)No.5004 of 2010 2 against the petitioner which was received by the second respondent and detailed enquiry was made in respect of the said cases. 3. In paragraph '6 ' it is stated that the irregularities were reported by second respondent to the Block Development Officer Vettikkavala Kottarakkara the appointing authority with a request to take appropriate decision and since no action is being taken against the petitioner it was decided not to accept any deposits from the petitioner until further orders as per letter dated 29/1/2010 produced as Ext.R2(c). It is further stated in paragraph '6' that on receipt of the request from the petitioner to accept the amount already collected from the depositors, her case was reconsidered and on 15/2/2010 the second respondent was again directed to accept the deposits from the petitioner until receipt of direction from the fifth respondent in order to avoid public complaints. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appointment is one made by the Block Development Officer and agreement is also executed with the Block Development Officer. Therefore, it is up to the Block Development Officer to W.P.(C)No.5004 of 2010 3 take a decision in the matter as it is indicated in the statement. The present arrangements will continue till orders are passed by the Block Development Officer in the matter. The petitioner will produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of this judgment before the fifth respondent. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE skj