S.K.Ayeed Saleem Vs the Union of India

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 4^th respondent not to insist the original deposit receipts and saving bank account passbook of the petitioner and pass payment order in favour of the petitioner herein and pass orders.

¶19

For Petitioner(s): Mr.V.Kasiviswanathan For Respondent(s): Mr.G.Krishna Kumar for R3 & R4

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The writ petition has been filed seeking a mandamus to the 4^th respondent not to insist the petitioner to produce the original deposit receipts and Saving Bank Account passbook and also to pass payment order in favour of the petitioner.

¶22

The petitioner would submit that he had invested Rs.1,45,000/- with the 3^rd respondent institution – PNL Nidhi Ltd., The Nidhi faced several litigations for non-payment of funds to its depositors. After several rounds of litigations, the Depositors' Association entered into an amicable settlement with the Nidhi vide the Memorandum of Understanding. Though the MoU did not materialise, an Administrator, the 4^th respondent was appointed, pursuant to the directions of this Court in W.P.No.4722 of 2016.

¶23

Page2 of 5

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

WP No. 9989 of 2024

¶26

On 05.10.2023, a publication was effected by the 4^th respondent in Tamil Daily 'Dinamalar' stating that the amounts due to the depositors would be disbursed. Accordingly, when the petitioner approached the 4^th respondent to settle his amount, the petitioner was asked to produce the original deposit receipts. In reply, the petitioner had informed the 4^th respondent that he did not possess the original deposit receipts as the same have been submitted to the second respondent on 30.01.2007. The petitioner had submitted the xerox copies of the deposit receipts along with the reply. Since the amounts were not being disbursed for want of the original deposit receipts, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶28

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 4^th respondent would submit that the petitioner till date has not submitted any written application before the Administrator, the 4^th respondent. As and when the written request is made by the petitioner, the same would be considered by the 4^th respondent.

¶29

__________ Page3 of 5

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

WP No. 9989 of 2024

¶32

Taking into account the statement made by the counsel for the 4^th respondent, the petitioner is directed to submit his application before the 4^th respondent within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and within four weeks therefrom, the 4^th respondent shall pass speaking orders either directing the third respondent to disburse the amount forthwith by taking into account the xerox copy of the deposit receipts now produced by the petitioner or else stating as to why the same cannot be considered by them.

¶33