IN THE) HIGH comm' OF KARNATAKA AT "
DATED Tms THE 54*" DAY OF JANuAR:?,__"2o:1TQ"L- T» "
PRESENTm~_
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUST1CE:_MANJ§fILA_ <ii{1ELLIj'R _V A I.' ' I
AND
THE HONBLE MR.Jus:sT1c'1¥;- Vf§NI.)fGOI3ALA--;GO'Ni)A
WRIT APPEAL N013-55u§8/20.09 (Sé'RES}
BETWEEN:
1.
Sri. P. B. Keshav Daqs & -
S/0
Aged 44.ye.9.arsT___--./_ ' '
Coffee Iifianyéij. '
Pannayyét»ESt'é*i;€..
Kuffita H " _
Kodvagu %:»;srr.:c:w '
. Ms. 15.3. chari-d;?a.'r;m?:--~.,, '
D/0 Late ..E1:yanjna'~._
f:'%gédLA48 years'
..':Pang1g;.yy_a Estate ---------- ~ "
V ._Kr_zti-a,' _A ._
'KC}Cia,g'u. ,V"1'}1flVs'trict
. .. APPELLANTS
N; R_21§.i'indrana1,h Kamath, Advocate]
x1. i§;1io1'1 01' India
" ' -. " -By Department of }*-'i1'1a:'1ce
by its Secretary
North Efiiock
Sansad Bhavan
Sansad Marg
New D€=fih.i
{U
2. The Post: Master Gerzeml
South Kamataka Region
l3anga}0re«56O 001
3. The Superintendent of Post Offices «
Kodagu Division
Madike1*i»571 20}
4. The Post. Master
Kutta Sub Post Olllee
Kutta
Kodagu District ' = . _ ...REé3l5ONDENTS
This lsi filed Karnataka High
Court Act passed in the Writ
"rijlsA;avpea..r for EPRELIMINARY HEARING
thisgjday, ClAll£l,l,UR, J. delivered the f0ll0wing:~
JUDGMENT
ljl’earCl’ iihe learned Cmmsel for the appellants and the
Aresp0r1c1e11tss.
2. The main e01’1l.er1%.ion of the appellant hereunder is
regard to Rule 7(2} of Indra Vikas Patra Rules, 1986 {for
short, ‘the Rules’) cementing it as an obstacle«~..i.n_;
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
3.The undisputed facts that led,i_o the “flli’1″1:§’;olf”presenl:l V’
appeal are as under:
The appellant said to ;7″lB§t’..¢ purchased I1’1d_ra .’fJikas_l»
Patras and had lost them. he ~ approached the
concerned Post Office i_ssl__ua:j_1ce”..dé;2plicate certificates.
Ii was rejected in pu}’Si~!.E1l:l(i€ ol.’A}lu1’e’v7l2=)l_of the above said
Rules.,~b_y slame;-“ll1e approached the Civil
J udgel'{.Srfil_l)n;,}l,V’llirajpelf’inO_lS.7O / 2004 and the same came
to be dlilélfisedlll of a direction to the concerned
autliioriircs to co:.1s__i_d_e1.’ %l’1e represeI1l,atio11 of ihe appellants
» on–.eqL1ily. For-tu11ately. no execution petition is filed
ll of the Order. However, the appellants
tho7ugh”f.: .it”lf’i1. to app:-oach this Court by filing a writ
q1.:est.iof1i11g§ Rule 7(2) 22mnal. They also sought
l ” -‘-‘for writ. of mandamus directing the respondents to pay a
sum of Rs.2 Iakhs. However’, the leamed Single Judge by
referring several decisions including the decision….repoi’ted’li’n
(1999) cm 11.1, in the ease OF UNiOi\l
OTHERS vs. GOKUL CHAND, uiiiii1é1tel.y Iheid.ti1;at.V_1rldi£a.
Vikas Patra is nothing short: of et1ri’e:ioy’__note. Therefolrelfii’
is Virtually lost / stolen / mut.ilated’;ldei’aeed “beyond V
recognition. there cannot be ‘z«,’it’1″1″y’=i’_:e”{)llléi:”._E:II1f3r1lfl ‘and’lRule 7(2)
is perfectly in order.
4». We got-ie .i:.i1rou’g31_’~..thelVf’ Rules, which are
furnished 15l.OW».’E1LV;£ifl’£.1€Xt{ifé§_~f\x.._ ” V_
5}. Ri.1le~7 V oi’:_i~h_eolficzve-~said Rules reads as under:
l'””~’RVu1e–V’.?:- Rve;5l2£t:e111ent of Certificate:
_ V “l’.lf”EiV_QQ1’v£.l’l.l(7£1E€ is mutilated or defaced,
l:iea._ifer is ezititled for replacement from the
‘ of iSSE.I€ on payment of fee of rupee
oiie.’ Q I
2. A cei”i1i1’i.c2iie lost, stolen. mutilated,
defaced or destroyed beyond recognition, will not
-~€ be replaced by any post office._”
‘..II
6. Rule-9 of the said Ruies reads under,
“Ru1e–9: Dischareie of Certificate:
person presenting a certificate for encashine1;.i__’__9″V.j’
shali sign in the space providing on the
thereof in token oi’ 11a\=’§ng re(:e»iV_ed
ané indicate thereon the name a:_1.€1Aaddress’;’-‘ 9
7. On perusal of RuEes;*?.’_& 9 1*egarLi5
of certifiezates, it wouid incVf1’eate_ there. no positive
interpretation from rules Lhai:._VI.rjo~–ra Vikas “Patras Eike
NatioxjhahihmS’2im;i§1gs9′:i§3Ve1*t;9ii’i.ei.1Ees Fixed Deposit Certificates
issuedhbyh ihe .Ba2iks9x:a’ii—,_be replaced with dupiieate ones.
We also mm-3 fshat.’._fo:~’, .«.~m.=~¢::~a1 reasons. the scheme of Indra
§§;é#rg1 we1s”d:’sCr.>:1tinued in 1999 itself. Apparentiy the
‘ sCh–erneV’eah1e”in_to existence somewhere in 198-4~85. There is
f1o”esha1v1ee§geVAf<V§ the above, said Ruies till it Eapsed in 1999 to
Con4sig:1ez'a1:he va1idi.t.y of Rule 7(2) to a. scheme, which has
2 bee-ome'obso1e.1.e since $999. If it so. it is Eike opening
A'I?an"<:1o:'a's box at this si'2.1ge. Ac:<.:o:'d§ngiy, We are of the
"~hV§N"opini<)r1 Elba: {he lealned Smgie Jucige has considered the
(3
controversial issue from right perspective and
orders with 11is_jL1stil'}a1blre. reasons.
Acc0r<:i1r1g1y. we diS1"1"1ISS the writ ;14ppe;'#:._1. ' 4'
maga