Allowed

Shameeza Faiz, v. Union Of India

Telangana HC15 Jun 2023WP/2177/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought cancellation of an NSC bond obtained from a Post Office to access funds deposited to settle a dispute with a third party. The Court held that the underlying dispute was settled and permitted the account closure, directing refund within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of by directing the Union of India, represented by the Ministry of Communications, Department of Posts, to close the NSC account bearing CIF ID 406126719 (Account No. 02

Shameeza Faiz, Vs Union Of India — Money Laundering | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵⁶ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 2177 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

Shameeza Faiz, WlO. Mohammed Wajid Hussain, Age. 21 Years, Occ. Housewife, Cast. IVluslim, F/O. H.No. 16-7-410, Azampura, Chaderghat, HYderabad

¶10

...PETrroNER

¶11

AND

¶12

'1 . Union Of lndia, Represented By The Secretary To Government Of lndia Ministry Of Communication, Department Of Posts Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi

¶13

fhe Sub Post Master, Sahifa Post Office Hyderabad^{-TELANGANA 500024}

¶14

Mohammed Wajid Hussain, Passport No. 22693380 S/O.^{Mohd. Siddiq} Hussain, Age 34 Years, Occ. Working At Abroad, Cast..Muslim Rep By GPA Holder Mohiammed Siddiq Hussain, S/O. Md. Khaja Hussain Age^{70 Years} Occ. Pvt Emp R/O B-4-37'llN135,Prabath Nagar, Moti Nagar, Yousufguda Hvderabad TELANGANA

¶15

...RE.'.NDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed^therewith, the^{High Court maybe} pleased to issue a writ, order or direction particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring, in not cancelling the^{NSC saving bond CIFlD 406126719} Account no. 020016692427 Scheme NSC and^{not releasing the amountto the} petitioner

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the HighCourt niaybe pleasedto} direct the Respondent No 2 to consider the^{requestfor cancellationof the NSC} saving bond CIF lD 406126719 Account^{no. 020016692427 Scheme NSC and for} releasing the amount to the^petitioner

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl.^{MD. FASIUDDIN'}

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents:^{SRl. SANJEEVGILLELLA(CENTRAL}

¶21

GOVERNMENT COUNSEL)

¶22

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶23

THE HON'.BI O SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHI;I:R I(UMAR UIRIT PETITION No.2177 of 2A23

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

Ile arrl l rarned corrnsel for the petition( r ancL iiri Sanjeev Gillella, lea:n d Standing Counsel for the Certral (i,rve:nment, appearing frrrespondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶26

This ffr t Petition is Illed seeking a wrir of [[, ndzrmus to declare he e :tiot-t of the respondents in not pe tr.litting rhe petitioner to r lrcel the National Savings Certificatt: NS,J) bond vicle CIF II) N r.4O6 1267 19 with Account xlo O2e )\66924.27 obtained fror the respor-rdent No.2 - Posl Olf r:l: and not releasrng t re :rmounl covered under the NSC, .,Ls illegally and arbitrar-v.

¶27

Ir is th I case of the petitioner that in vie.,, of certain disputcs be tv l(n the petitioner and responrlent .\r;.3 ancl by virtue of ,l--., settlement arrived at between the partres, respondcnt ftr .li deposited an amount of Rs 10,0(),.)OO/ rvith respondcnt N, .!l and obtained NSC rn question irr 1l.re rrame of the pe litionr:r >1 securing the interest in favorLr of t: r, pe titioner and her r:hi clr :rL. It is the furthcr case of the petitic r.Lcr that all the disprrte r; I eiween the petrtioner and resptnrlerL _ No 3 have

¶28

¶29

beerr settlcd and they have been living together peacefullp in vie',v of the decision taken by the petitioner and resporrdent No.3 together to come back ancl cornnte nce business in India, the petitioner required the amounts that were deposited with respondent No.2 ancl therefore, the petitioncr approached respondent No.2 seeking cancellation of NSC in question and to refund the amollnt to the petitioner. But, the saicl request of the petitioner is not being accedecl to by respondent No.2. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court b1, filing the present writ petition.

¶30

Sri Sanjeev Gil1el1a, learned Standirrg Counsel for thc Central Government, appearing for responclent No. 1 and 2, subnritted that the NSC in question rvith Account No.020016692427 was opened in the name of the petitioner at respondent No.2 - Post Ofhce on O4.O8.2O21 for an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-. He further submitted that as per Rule 162 (1) of POSB CBS Manual, no NSC issued can be closed prematurely and such closure prematurely can be allowed under the following circumstances:

¶31

i. On the death of holder or any of the holders in case of joint holders.

I I

tl O-r f rrf-eiture by a pledgee being rr⁽ )azetted Grrv rrrment Officer.

¶37

ll1 Whr r ordered by a Court of Law.

¶38

Unlc:;s the petitioner complies rvith any ,rf the above conditio;'rs, I -rr' cance liation / return of th€ am,)unt to the petitione r c or :re ci by the NSC does not aris( . Pro^.l t the sfo61,s, it is cle:ir -h t ccrndition Nos. 1 and 2 are rrot sa - s herl in the instanL cas;e n rr such conditions are com tlicd 'r,ith by the petilioner. FI 'nce, the petitioner seeks appropriatr r.,rdcrs from this Court.

¶39

This lr l t, after having perused the ar,'ermt r.l ts rnade in the affid rvr - i n,l the der:laration that was given lt',^.-esltondent No.3, da tecl 2.12.2022, is of the considered vie .;r that the purpose ol d :positing the said amount covered b,. tlte NSC is already r;e : v<'d and rhe petrtioner herself intencli; to utilize the said am unt for the u,e11 being of hr:r farrrily. In the circumstance I ,^,hrs Court is inclined to perm t the 1;,:tit:oner to cancel arLd^.r'i -rrlraw the amounl covered by NSC in ,l _lestion.

¶40

7 . Acr;or lir g y, the rvrit petition is drsposed ,;^' directing respondent N ,.1 t.o take appropriate steps for clo sr: re of NSC bearing -1\cco,,^-)r No.020016692427 to refund the :r.aorrnt clue

¶41

¶42

ancl paya.ble to thc petitioner, as cxpec{itiously as possible aL any rate, rvithin a period of four (4) u,eel<s from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶43

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this rvrit

¶44

perition shall stald closed.

¶45

SD/. K. AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR C'ry) SECTION OFFICER

¶46

//TRUE COPY/I

¶47

To, 1. The Secretary to^{Government Of lndia} '^{Union Of lndia ,Ministry Of} ..

¶48

6m;r;6ti6n,^{Department Of Posts Dak Bhavan, Salsad.{qrg'-N-eg^D^eJhi}

¶49

1. i#'$;' il"iit^{iuitii sitif a Post off ice Hvde-rq p.1d -TELANGANA 500024}

¶50

g., onL cc to snt. MD FASIUDDIN, Advocate [OPUQ

¶51

;.^iil; cc io sni.^{sAIIJEEV GILLELLA(cENTRAL GovERNMENT} COUNSEL) [OPUC]

¶52

Two CD CoPies

¶53

BM GJP

HIGH COURIT

DATED:1 5l0t6'2:,023

ORDER

--..=-
jr r.r L rJ,i.
4
q1 rt\ 8?3 I

¶58

WP.No.2177' tfi 2023

¶59

DISPOSING⁽ )F THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT Co:JTS

¶60

1
.\D'
-'1li,l,')

Shameeza Faiz, v. Union Of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shameeza Faiz, v. Union Of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s India Traders Vs Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University

M/s. Gayatri Ganga Constructions Vs Union of India

Alum Madhu Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Gamut India Projects formerly known as Gamut Infra Vs The State of Telangana

Animugh Sports Pvt. Ltd. Vs Palamuru University and 2 others

Garlapati Raghavendra Vs Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited.