Petitioner challenged premature closure of PPF account due to financial hardship. Court held request didn't meet statutory criteria but permitted representation to Central Government for relaxation of provisions.
Permitted to make representation to third respondent for relaxation of scheme due to hardship; respondent to decide within four weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(MD)No.603 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH Court DATED: 01.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.(MD)No.603 of 2021 WMP(MD).No.522 of 2021 (Through Video Conferencing) K.P.S.Palanivelrajan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Regional Manager, State Bank of India Vinayaga Nagar, Madurai.
2.The Branch Manager State Bank of India Anna Nagar, Madurai, Madurai District.
3.Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs represented by its Secretary New Delhi ... Respondents
(R3 has been suo-motu impleaded as per the order of this Court dated 01.07.2021)
PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to consider the request sent by mail on 10.12.2020 for preclosing the PPF A/C.No.34190589650 by accepting Form 5 prescribed under the Public Provident Scheme by crediting the amount into the SB A/c.No.10111571317 held with the 2nd respondent within a stipulated time.
For Petitioner :Mr.B.Saravanan For Respondents :Mr.H.Thayumanaswamy for R1&R2 Ms.L.Victoria Gowri for R3
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent bank to permit the petitioner to pre-close the PPF account maintained by the petitioner.
1/3
W.P.(MD)No.603 of 2021
is 15 years and the account holder will be permitted to withdraw the amount with interest only on the completion of the period. The scheme itself provides for certain special circumstances, where the account holder is permitted for premature closure of the account.
“Premature closure of account:- (1) An account holder shall be allowed premature closure of his account of the account of a minor or person of unsound mind of whom is the guardian on an application to the accounts office in Form-5 on any of the following grounds, namely:-
a) treatment of life threatening disease of the account holder, his spouse or dependant children or parents, on production of supporting documents and medical reports confirming such disease from treating medical authority;
b) higher education of the account holder, or dependant children on production of documents and fee bills in confirmation of admission in a recognised institute of higher education in India or abroad. ......”
“17.Power to relax: Where the Central Government is satisfied that the operation of any of the provisions of this Scheme causes undue hardship to an account holder, it may, by order for reasons to be recorded in writing,
2/3
W.P.(MD)No.603 of 2021
relax the requirements of that provision or provisions in a manner not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act.”
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CSIII)
// True Copy //
/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
RR
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To
The Secretary
Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs New Delhi
+1 CC to M/s.B.SARAVANAN, Advocate ( SR-20967[F] dated 02/07/2021 )
W.P.(MD)No.603 of 2021 01.07.2021
DKS(CO)
KB(09.07.2021) 3P 3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
3/3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is permitted to make a representation to the Central Government seeking relaxation of the PPF scheme provisions due to undue hardship.
Whether the impleaded third respondent is directed to consider the representation and decide within a stipulated time.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
K.P.S. Palanivelrajan
Regional Manager, State Bank of India Vinayaga Nagar, Madurai
Branch Manager State Bank of India Anna Nagar, Madurai
Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs
N. Anand Venkatesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
