- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43411 WP No.24857 of 2023 C/W WP Nos.24891 of 2023 & 24919 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.24857 OF 2023 (GM-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NOS.24891 OF 2023 & 24919 OF 2023 IN WP No. 24857/2023 BETWEEN: 1. BOLA RAHUL KAMATH HUF REPRESENTED BY ITS KARTA, MR. BOLA RAHUL KAMATH, S/O. LATE SURENDRA KAMATH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT GOWRI SHANKAR, SALMAR, KARKALA-574 104. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NIKIT BALA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. POPAT PRASHANT DHARMASINH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE HEAD POST MASTER OFFICE OF THE POST MASTER (GRADE III), KARKALA, HPO-574 104. 2. THE POST MASTER GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, INDIA, BENGALURU (HQ), Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43411 WP No.24857 of 2023 C/W WP Nos.24891 of 2023 & 24919 of 2023 PALACE ROAD, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001, KARNATAKA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SADHANA DESAI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE LETTER DATED 02.08.2023 BEARING NO.SB/2023- 24 DATED 02.08.2023 ANNEXURE-D ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1; AND ETC. IN WP NO. 24891/2023 BETWEEN: 1. BOLA DAMODAR KAMATH HUF REPRESENTED BY ITS KARTA MR. BOLA DAMODAR KAMATH S/O LATE SURENDRA KAMATH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT GOWRI SHANKAR, SALMAR, KARKALA - 574104. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. NIKIT BALA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. POPAT PRASHANT DHARMASINH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE HEAD POST MASTER OFFICE OF THE POST MASTER (GRADE III) KARKALA HPO - 574 104. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43411 WP No.24857 of 2023 C/W WP Nos.24891 of 2023 & 24919 of 2023 2. THE POST MASTER GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, INDIA, BENGALURU (HQ), PALACE ROAD, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU -560001 KARNATAKA. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SADHANA DESAI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE LETTER DATED 02/08/2023 BEARING NO. SB/2023-24 DATED 02/08/2023 (ANNEXURE-D) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1. IN WP NO. 24919/2023 BETWEEN: 1. BOLA RAJESH KAMATH HUF REPRESENTED BY ITS KARTA MR. BOLA RAJESH KAMATH S/O LATE SURENDRA KAMATH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT GOWRI SHANKAR, SALMAR, KARKALA - 574104 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. NIKIT BALA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. POPAT PRASHANT DHARMASINH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE HEAD POST MASTER OFFICE OF THE POST MASTER (GRADE III) KARKALA HPO - 574 104 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43411 WP No.24857 of 2023 C/W WP Nos.24891 of 2023 & 24919 of 2023 2. THE POST MASTER GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF POSTS INDIA, BENGALURU (HQ), PALACE ROAD, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU -560001 KARNATAKA. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SADHANA DESAI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE LETTER DATED 02/08/2023 BEARING NO. SB/2023-24 DATED 02/08/2023 (ANNEXURE-D) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER 1. In these writ petitions, petitioners are assailing the letter dated 02.08.2023 issued by respondent No.1, inter alia, sought for a direction to the respondents to release the maturity amount with up-to-date interest in the account of the petitioners maintained with the respondent No.1. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43411 WP No.24857 of 2023 C/W WP Nos.24891 of 2023 & 24919 of 2023 2. Heard Sri. Nikit Bala, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. Popat Prashant Dharmasinh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Sadhana Desai, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that, the petitioners had opened an account in the name of Hindu Undivided Family through 'the public provident fund scheme' (hereinafter referred to as' the scheme') framed under the provisions of the Public Provident Fund Act, 1968. The deposit was made by the petitioners in the PPF Account with the maturity period of 15 years and was further renewable with the respondent No.1. It is stated that, the Central Government has evolved a scheme as per Notification dated 13.05.2005 (Annexure-R4) and issued the letter dated 13.12.2010 (Annexure-R5), wherein it stipulates that the PPF Account opened in the name of HUF, prior to 13.05.2005 cannot be further extended after maturity and no further deposit can be accepted in such accounts after maturity. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions challenging the letter dated 02.08.2023 addressed by the respondent No.1 to debit the interest from 01.04.2020 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43411 WP No.24857 of 2023 C/W WP Nos.24891 of 2023 & 24919 of 2023 approximately, Rs.7,02,341/- in the respective Savings Bank Account of the petitioners. Hence, these petitions are filed. 4. Sri. Nikit Bala, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, the petitioners were not aware about the Notification at Annexure-R4 and the letter dated 13.12.2010 at Annexure-R5 and as the petitioners have opened the PPF account during 2005 for a period of 15 years, the respondent ought to have informed the petitioners with regard to the Notification produced at Annexure-R4 and R5 and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 5. Per contra, Smt. Sadhana Desai, learned counsel for the respondents sought to justify the impugned action at Annexure-D by referring to the Notification dated 13.05.2005(Annexure-R4), wherein 'HUF' and 'Hindu Undivided Family' were omitted from the PPF Scheme and therefore it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that, the petitioners are not entitled for interest from the date of maturity i.e., from the year 2020 till date. Alternatively, it is argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that, the petitioners were informed through letter dated - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43411 WP No.24857 of 2023 C/W WP Nos.24891 of 2023 & 24919 of 2023 02.08.2023(Annexure-D) and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for the interest pursuant to the issuance of Annexure-D and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the Writ Petitions. 6. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that, the petitioners in all these Writ Petitions, opened a bank account with the respondent No.1 under the Public Provident Fund Scheme. It is also not in dispute that, the period mentioned for maturity is 15 years in respect of the deposit made under the HUF/PPF Scheme. Undisputedly, the deposit made by the petitioners were matured during the year 2020 and at that point of time, the respondents were aware about the notification dated 13.05.2005(Annexure-R4) and the letter dated 13.12.2010 (Annexure-R5). If at all the respondents had informed the petitioners about the aforementioned Notification without renewing the further deposit, the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents would have been acceptable. Further the respondents have credited interest even after the maturity of the deposit of the petitioners and same would attract the doctrine of estoppel on the part of respondents to say that, the petitioners are not entitled for - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43411 WP No.24857 of 2023 C/W WP Nos.24891 of 2023 & 24919 of 2023 interest after the period of maturity. In this regard, this Court in W.P.No.2042/2023 dated 31.03.2023, in identical circumstances, at paragraph Nos.12 to 15 held as follows: " 12. If the authorities, who are to be aware of amendment of the Scheme, as also the fact that no HUF account could be opened under the Scheme, if have permitted to open and operate the account for 12 years, the petitioner, a common man cannot be blamed that too after 12 years of opening of the account. The 1st and 2nd respondents could not have permitted opening of the account and further could not have permitted deposits into the account for 12 long years. Having kept quiet, all along cannot pass the buck upon the petitioner and make the account irregular and deny interest for the investment. The petitioner desirous of accumulating money for his daughter’s marriage opened the account and continues investment into the account. The action of the respondents in denying interest on the said investment comes as a rude shock to the petitioner. The action of the respondents in denying interest and directing closure of the account holding it to be irregular does not behoove its status being a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, as the impugned action is far from fairness. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43411 WP No.24857 of 2023 C/W WP Nos.24891 of 2023 & 24919 of 2023 13. The Apex Court in somewhat similar circumstances in the case of BHAGWATI VANASPATI TRADERS v. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES [(2015) 1 SCC 617] has held as follows: “11. We find merit in the second contention advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant. It is indeed true, that the NSC was purchased in the name of M/s Bhagwati Vanaspati Traders. It is also equally true, that M/s Bhagwati Vanaspati Traders is a sole proprietorship concern of B.K. Garg, and as such, the irregularity committed while issuing the NSC in the name of M/s Bhagwati Vanaspati Traders, could have easily been corrected by substituting the name of M/s Bhagwati Vanaspati Traders with that of B.K. Garg. For, in a sole proprietorship concern an individual uses a fictional trade name, in place of his own name. The rigidity adopted by the authorities is clearly ununderstandable. The postal authorities having permitted M/s Bhagwati Vanaspati Traders to purchase the NSC in the year 1995, could not have legitimately raised a challenge of irregularity after the maturity thereof in the year 2001, especially when the irregularity was curable. Legally, Rule 17 of the Post Office Savings Bank General Rules, 1981, would apply only when an applicant is irregularly allowed something more than what is contemplated under a scheme. As for instance, if the scheme contemplates an interest of Y% and the certificate issued records the interest of Y+2% as payable on maturity, the certificate-holder cannot be deprived of the interest as a whole, on account of the above irregularity. He can only - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43411 WP No.24857 of 2023 C/W WP Nos.24891 of 2023 & 24919 of 2023 be deprived of 2% i.e. the excess amount, beyond the permissible interest, contemplated under the scheme. A certificate-holder, would have an absolute right, in the above illustration, to claim interest at Y% i.e. in consonance with the scheme, despite Rule 17. Ordinarily, when the authorities have issued a certificate which they could not have issued, they cannot be allowed to enrich themselves, by retaining the deposit made. This may well be possible if the transaction is a sham or wholly illegal. Not so, if the irregularity is curable. In such circumstances, the postal authorities should devise means to regularise the irregularity, if possible. 12. It is not possible for us to deny relief to the appellant, based on the judgments rendered by this Court in Prameeelamma case [Deptt. of Posts v. Prameeelamma, (1998) 9 SCC 706] and Arulmighu Dhandayudhapani swamy Thirukoil case [Arulmighu Dhanda- yudhapaniswamy Thirukoil v. Deptt. of Posts, (2011) 13 SCC 220: (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 435] in view of the fact that the matter was never examined in the perspective determined by us hereinabove. In neither of the two judgments, the amendment of the NSC was sought. The instant proposition of law, was also not projected on behalf of the certificate-holders, in the manner expressed above. 13. There was seriously no difficulty at all in the facts and circumstances of the present case, to regularise the defect pointed out because M/s Bhagwati Vanaspati Traders is admittedly the sole proprietorship concern of B.K. Garg. The postal authorities should have solicited the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43411 WP No.24857 of 2023 C/W WP Nos.24891 of 2023 & 24919 of 2023 change of the name in the NSC, through a representation by B.K. Garg himself. On receipt of such a representation, the alleged irregularity would have been cured, and the beneficiary of the deposit, would have legitimately reaped the fruits thereof. Rather than adopting the above simple course, the postal authorities chose to strictly and rigidly interpret the terms of the scheme. This resulted in the denial of the legitimate claims of the sole proprietor of the appellant concern i.e. B.K. Garg, of the investment made by him. In the above view of the matter, we consider it just and appropriate, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, to direct the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Meerut, to correct the NSC issued in the name of M/s Bhagwati Vanaspati Traders, by substituting the appellant's name, with that of B.K. Garg.” (Emphasis supplied) The case before the Apex Court was also opening of an account in the name of a partnership firm in the Post Office. It was held to be irregular. The Apex Court holds that unless opening of account was wholly illegal, the irregularity cannot lead to denial of interest to the investor, particularly, when the defect was curable. The judgment of the Apex Court would become applicable to the facts obtaining in the case at hand as they are some what identical. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43411 WP No.24857 of 2023 C/W WP Nos.24891 of 2023 & 24919 of 2023 14. In the light of unequivocal facts as narrated hereinabove and the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of BHAGWATI VANASPATHI TRADERS (supra), the petition deserves to succeed, albeit, in part. The petitioner would be entitled to interest under the Scheme, only up to the date on which the communication comes to the petitioner i.e., 23-09-2021. On and from 23-09-2021 the account of the petitioner till its maturity shall carry interest at the scheduled Banks lending rate and not the rate of interest under the Scheme. 15. Parting observation in the facts and circumstances of the case would not be inapt. The 1st and 2nd respondents should set their house in order. In this digital age it is necessary that 1st and 2nd respondents update themselves with regard to such accounts and not wake up from slumber after several years and penalize the investors. The investor, as in the case at hand, is a common man and would not know the prevailing law. He was only interested in investment and in return wants to have interest on such investment. It is for the Authorities to detect such accounts which are opened irregularly as soon as they are opened, on intermittent scrutiny of the accounts and inform such investors immediately, failing which, the Officers who manage such accounts should be held responsible and - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43411 WP No.24857 of 2023 C/W WP Nos.24891 of 2023 & 24919 of 2023 accountable for such dereliction of duty. It is necessary for the respondents to issue these instructions to all the Post Offices who handle such accounts, so that the common man does not bear the brunt of unnecessary litigation. " (Emphasis supplied) 7. Following the declaration of law referred to above and in the circumstances of the case, the present Writ Petitions are allowed and the respective letters dated 02.08.2023 addressed by the respondent No.1 to the petitioners herein, are hereby quashed and direction is issued to the respondents to release the maturity amount with up-to-date interest in the respective accounts of the petitioners, within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28