IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2008 / 9TH MAGHA 1929 W.P(C).No.35522 of 2007(D) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- THE MEENATH KSHEEROLPADAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.A.135(D) (APCOS), VALLIKUNNAM P.O., MAVELIKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE POST MASTER GENERAL, CENTRAL REGION, KOCHI. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, MAVELIKARA DIVISION, MAVELIKARA. 4. THE POST MASTER, VALLIKUNNAM POST OFFICES, VALLIKUNNAM, MAVELIKARA DIVISION, MAVELIKARA. BY ADV. SRI.TOJAN J.VATHIKULAM, ADDL.CGSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 35522 OF 2007 D = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th January, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Exts. P3 and P6 and the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay Rs.2,40,000/- to the petitioner forthwith. Petitioner is a co- operative society which had purchased 12 Kissan Vikas Pathras, each worth Rs.10,000/-. Ext. P1 is the receipt issued by the 4th respondent and Ext. P2 is a specimen copy of one of the certificate issued by the 4th respondent. The policy matured on 16.4.2007 and when the petitioner approached the 3rd respondent for releasing the maturity value, they were informed that no interest can be paid as the certificates were held by them in contravention of the rules. 2. Petitioner submitted that they pursued the matter by making Ext. P4 representation to the 1st respondent and copy of the same was also submitted to the 3rd respondent by Ext. P5. It is stated that even this representation was turned down by the 2nd respondent by Ext. P6. The objection raised by the respondents in W.P.(C) No. 35522 OF 2007 -2- Exts. P3 and P6 are reiterated in the statement filed in this Court. According to them in terms of the rules prevailing on the issue of KVPs., the certificates can be purchased by individuals in their individual capacity. According to them, now that it has become clear that the society was the purchaser of the certificates, the very purchase was irregular and when the certificates are surrendered on maturity, the petitioner cannot be granted the interest which is otherwise payable. 3. In paragraph 5 of the writ petition petitioner has narrated the details of the purchase of certificates on earlier occasions and according to the petitioner on all such occasions the certificates were purchased by the society and on maturity the full value of the certificate was released by the respondents. Of course, it is explained by the respondents in the statement that the certificates were purchased by the individuals who were the President and Secretary of the society and that those certificates were surrendered for encashment by the purchaser himself. According to the society it was only in view of that the full value of the certificate was released to the society. 4. Presently, as can be seen from Ext. P2 specimen copy of the certificate, the certificate is issued in the name of the then President W.P.(C) No. 35522 OF 2007 -3- of the society. It is on that basis that the respondents have treated the certificate as one purchased by an individual. A reading of the address given in the certificate itself shows that the purchaser is described himself as the President of the petitioner society. From this it is obvious that the certificate was purchased by the then President of the society in his official capacity and hence on behalf of the society itself. If such issue of the certificate was irregular, the respondents also have to be treated as having been a party to such irregularity and if so, there is absolutely no justification for them to contend that the petitioner will be deprived of the interest that accrued on the deposit that was made. In any case, I do not think that there is any justification for denying interest, particularly since the deposit has earned interest in any event. 5. Therefore, I quash Exts. P3 and P6 and direct that the respondents shall release to the petitioner the amount of Rs.2,40,000/- on the petitioner surrendering the K.V.Ps. issued to them for the purchase value of Rs.1,20,000/-. The writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-