JUDGMENT
1. This mandamus appeal is at the instance of the postal authority and is directed against order dated 16th March, 2001 passed by a learned Single Judge by which His Lordship disposed of a writ application filed by the three writ petitioners by which the letter dated 7th June, 2000 issued by the Senior Superintendent of Post Office, North Calcutta Division, was set aside and the post office concerned was directed to refund the principal amount together-with interest payable in terms of Monthly Income Seheme within fifteen days from the date of communication of that order. His Lordship further gave liberty to the writ petitioners to invest their money under the said Monthly Income Scheme if the same was available, but within the limit prescribed by the Scheme.
2. Being dissatisfied, the postal authority has come up with the present mandamus appeal.
3. It appears that two different accounts under Monthly Income Scheme were opened. The petitioner No. 1 is the husband of petitioner No. 2 and father of petitioner No. 3 while petitioner No. 2 is the mother of petitioner No. 3.
4. By opening the two different joint accounts, one between petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 and the other between petitioner No. 2 and petitioner No. 3, a total amount of Rs. 6,10,000.00 was deposited. The accounts in the names of petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 invested Rs. 4,06,000.00 while the other accounts in the names of petitioner No. 2 and petitioner No. 3 invested a further amount of Rs. 2,04,000.00.
5. According to the monthly income scheme which gives higher amount of interest than the other schemes available in the field, a joint account of two persons can invest maximum limit of Rs. 4,08,000.00 and a person holding single account can invest a sum of Rs. 2,04,000.00. In this case, those accounts were opened in the year 1997, but in the year 2000 it was detected by the postal authority that by taking advantage of two separate accounts, the petitioner No. 2 was enjoying interest over an investment of Rs. 3,05,000.00 which is beyond the permissible limit for an individual. In such a situation, the postal authority proposed to close those two accounts and regularize the account by limiting those accounts to the permissible limit and returning the balance amount and at the same time, by deducting excess interest taken by the petitioners.
6. Being dissatisfied, the petitioners came up with the writ application alleging that they were not aware of the said rule and it was the agent of the postal authority who compelled them to open such account without disclosing the prescribed rules. It was further contended that the postal authority could not take advantage of their own wrong.
7. As indicated above, the learned Single Judge accepted the contention of the writ petitioners and passed order mentioned earlier.
8. Being dissatisfied, the postal authority has come up with the present mandamus appeal.
9. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, we are unable to approve the order passed by the learned Single Judge. In this case, the two accounts were opened in violation of the statutory rules and by taking advantage of such mistake, the writ petitioners could not claim special rate of interest available in monthly income scheme.
10. It is now settled law that a Writ Court cannot direct the State to do something against the existing law of the land.
11. We are, therefore, of the view that, in the fact of the present case, it was the duty of the learned Single Judge to direct the postal authority to refund the excess amount if the petitioners were willing to continue with the said monthly income scheme within the permissible limit and at the same time, to pass a direction for payment of interest at the S.B. rate available in the post offices on the excess amount.
12. It is needless to mention that excess amount of interest realized at the special rate under Monthly Income Scheme should be refunded to the postal authority and instead of that, available rate of interest as S. B. rate should be given to the writ petitioners.
13. We are given to understand that by this time those two monthly income schemes have matured. In such a situation, we give option to the writ petitioner either to reinvest the permissible amount in the aforesaid two accounts or to take back the entire amount on maturity. If the petitioners want to take back the entire amount, in such a case, the postal authority will adjust the excess amount of interest under Monthly Income Scheme and instead of that, will pay interest at the S. B. rate prevailing at all material times.
14. However, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners after taking instruction from his clients informed this Court that his elients are willing to continue with the Monthly Income Scheme within the permissible limit.
15. Such being the position, we direct the postal authority to refund the excess amount with interest at S.B. rate after adjusting the excess amount already realized by the writ petitioners at the M.I.S. rate.
16. We are also given to understand that after maturity of an existing monthly income scheme, subsequently, if the holder of the account expresses his willingness to continue, the said scheme continues with retrospective effect from the date of maturity of the earlier scheme. The postal authority will follow such rule in the present case also. The excess amount with interest after readjustment as indicated above, be given back to the petitioners within one month from today.
17. It is also needless to mention that the petitioners after expiry of the previous scheme will get interest at the rate under the scheme as if a new account was opened after the maturity. The writ petitioners are directed to fill up necessary form within a week from today conveying their willingness to open a new monthly income scheme with effect from the date of expiry of the previous one.
18. With the aforesaid directions this mandamus appeal is, thus, disposed of.
19. Xerox certified copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties within a week from the date of making of such application on compliance with requisite formalities.