AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The appeal is directed against an order dated March 20, 2003 passed on the appellants’ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. According
to the appellants, the appellants or their close associates invested in three several monthly installment schemes before the postal authorities and
surrendered the relevant passbooks to incorporate the names of the nominees, whereupon only one of the pass-books has been returned and the two
others have not been returned.
The Single Bench found that since the stand of the postal authorities was that the two other accounts were not in the names of the appellants, the
disputes as to whether the appellants were entitled to the return of the pass-books or the benefits under the scheme could not be conveniently
adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
According to the appellants, several interim orders have been passed in the present appeal which culminated in the arrest of an erstwhile employee of
the postal department. The appellants insist that since the receipts in respect of the three pass-books were made over to the appellants and some
money in respect of the two other accounts were also permitted to be withdrawn by the appellants, the postal authorities cannot be heard to say that
the appellants are not entitled to the return of the pass- books pertaining to the two other accounts or the benefits of the monies lying deposited
thereunder.
According to the postal authorities, the receipts in respect of the two other pass-books which are not in the names of the appellants, were issued by a
tout or a former employee of the postal department who had no authority to bind the postal authorities in any manner or to deal with any constituent. It
is the further submission on behalf of the postal authorities that upon an investigation being conducted, the persons rightfully entitled to the benefits
under the two other accounts have been identified and the monies deposited under the schemes have been made over to them.
In view of the events that have overtaken the appellants and the fact that the payments in respect of the two other accounts have already been
discharged, no relief can be granted to the appellants. Even if the two other accounts had not been discharged, this Court in exercise of its limited
authority could have scarcely embarked on an exercise to adjudicate on the disputes on facts that have arisen.
Accordingly, FMA 1834 of 2003 is disposed of without interfering with the order impugned dated March 20, 2003 and by leaving the appellants herein
free to pursue whatever remedies they may have against the respondents or against any other in respect of the relevant postal monthly investment
schemes. It will also be open to the appellants to cite the time spent in this Court for the same to be excluded if limitation were to be an issue. There
will be no order as to costs.