JUDGMENT : Antony Dominic, J. Petitioner is a multi purpose primary co-operative society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. During 2003, petitioner made certain deposits in Kisan Vikas Patra, the certificates of which are Exts. P1 to P1(n) of Rs. 1,00,000/- each. Scheme provided that, on expiry of the maturity period of 7 years and 8 months, the depositor is entitled to get double the amount of deposit. On maturity of the deposit, petitioner applied for releasing the maturity value relying on Ext. P3 judgment of this Court. Payment was not made and therefore the writ petition has been filed. 2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent. Though the 1st respondent admits of having accepted the deposit in question, according to the 1st respondent, in terms of the Kisan Vikas Patra Rules, 1988 issued by the Government of India, the deposit of certificates and issue thereof have been specified in Rule 6 thereof. It is stated that in Rule 6, a single holder type certificate like the one issued to the petitioner herein could have been Issued to an adult for himself or on behalf of a minor or to a minor or to a trust. It is stated that in this case though the deposit was made in the name of the then President and Secretary of the petitioner Bank, depositor is the Bank, which was impermissible in terms of the said Rule. Therefore, relying on the Apex Court Judgment in Civil Appeal No. 4995/2006, a copy of which has been produced as Ext. R1 (a), respondents contend that the petitioner is ineligible for the benefit of the maturity value payable in terms of the scheme under which the deposit has been made. 3. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides and considering the rival submissions, I am inclined to agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents. Admittedly, the deposit in question has been made in terms of the Kisan Vikas Patra Rules, which does not provide for deposit by Institutions such as Co-operative Banks like the petitioner. The fact that the Bank is the depositor, though receipts have been issued in the name of the then President and the Secretary, is not a matter which is disputed by the petitioner even. The fact that the Bank is the depositor, though receipts have been issued in the name of the then President and the Secretary, is not a matter which is disputed by the petitioner even. In such circumstances, the deposit is irregular and if that be so, the question is whether an irregular depositor is entitled to the benefit of the scheme. This very issue was considered by the Apex Court. In Ext. R1(a) Judgment referred to above where a similar claim made by a temple was turned down by the Apex Court holding that the deposit was irregular. In terms of Rule 17 of the Post Office Savings Bank General Rules. Therefore, the issue canvassed by the petitioner is fully answered by the said Judgment. For that reason, the relief has to be declined. In the result, writ petition fails and is dismissed.