IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2011 / 8TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 19852 of 2008(L) ------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- K.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O.K.PARASHURAMAN NAIR AGED 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT USHUS, NEAR SREEKALA THEATRE, THRIPUNITHURA BY ADVS. SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ SRI.SURAJ.S SRI.P.A.KUMARAN SMT.VINEETHA B. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR CORPORATE OFFICE, SANCHAR BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER (FINANCE) BSNL, BSNL BHAVAN, KALATHIL PARAMBIL ROAD KOCHI-16 3. ACCOUNTS OFFICER (TR V), BSNL, O/O PGMTD, KOCHI-16. R1 TO R3 BY ADVS. SRI. MATHEWS K. PHILIP, SC, BSNL SRI.V.V.SIDHARTHAN, SC, BSNL SRI.P.A.AUGUSTINE, SC, BSNL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 19852 of 2008(L) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE BILL SHOWING ABOUT THE VOLUNTARY SCHEME. EXT.P2 : RECEIPT SHOWING THE DEPOSIT OF RS. 1,10,000/- DATED 7.8.2002 MADE BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 30.5.2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a) : COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT FROM THE TELECOM TARIFF. EXT.R1(b) : COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO. TR-V/VLDINT/12 DT. 30-6-08 SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER. EXT.R1(c) : COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE PETITIONER'S ACCOUNT. EXT.R1(d) COPY OF THE INTEREST CALCULATION STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER'S ACCOUNT. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 19852 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 29th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T Pursuant to a voluntary deposit scheme offered to the subscribers by the 1st respondent-BSNL, the petitioner deposited an amount of ` 1,10,000/- with the BSNL, which together with interest thereon at 9% was to be adjusted against the future bills of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, after adjusting the bills, an amount of ` 63,632/- was only refunded to the petitioner on his request. According to him, he is entitled to interest also on this amount, which has not been paid. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following relief: “To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents (sic) give full statements of accounts regarding the deposit of Rs.1,10,000/- by the petitioner and to refund the remaining amount in deposit with interest at the rate of 9% within a time frame to be fixed by this Honourable Court.” 2. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit, paragraph 7 of which, reads thus: “7. It is most humbly submitted that there is no provision in the Rules to refund voluntary deposit. In other words the deposit collected from the customers is only for adjusting against future telephone bills. Therefore any request made for refund of deposited amount is unsustainable and illegal. Considering the request of the petitioner and considering the low calling pattern of the petitioner, the amount deposited at his credit has been refunded. However, the interest due to the petitioner has been taken to his credit for adjustments in future bills. In view of the above the petitioner ceased to have any grievance in the matter. Without prejudice to the above the respondent denies the averments and allegations contained in paragraph 1 to 12 of the writ petition.” w.p.c.19852/08 2 The underlined sentences would show that the interest accrued to the petitioner on the said amount of ` 63,632/- has been credited to his account and adjusted in his future bills. That being so, the petitioner cannot have any grievance. Accordingly, recording the statement in the counter affidavit of the respondents, this writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge