Judgment : The interpretation to be placed on rules 4 and 5 of the Post Office Monthly Income Account R the MIA Rules for short) framed and issued by the Central Government under section 15 of 1873 (hereinafter referred to as the Savings Banks Act for short), is the issue that arises for brief facts of the case are as follows: 2. The petitioner was formerly residing at Chennai with her husband Sri.Sadasiva Pai. While residing at Chennai, on 17.5.2004, the petitioner's husband opened five single accounts Rs.50,000/- each in his name in different Post Offices at Chennai. On 12.8.2004 he opened MIA Rules in his name by depositing Rs.50,000/-in another Post Office. The petitioner and h by depositing Rs.1,50,000/- each and one joint account by depositing Rs.3,00,000/-in their 13.7.2004 at three different Post Offices in Chennai. Later, on 14.3.2005, the petitioner op Rs.60,000/- in her name under the MIA Rules. After the accounts were opened, the intere deposits was being credited in the savings bank accounts maintained by the petitioner and her Chennai. In July 2006, the petitioner and her husband shifted residence to Pune. On their re Rules standing in their individual and joint names were transferred to the Air Force Station P stated that in order to facilitate payment of interest every month, they also opened (according 4th respondent Post Master) Savings Bank Account No.858971 in their joint names at the petitioners were drawing interest on the deposits every month till November 2009. Thereafter, they are presently residing. 3. Thereafter, they are presently residing. 3. After the petitioner and her husband shifted their residence to Aluva, they applied for transfe Aluva and that was done after the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Aluva Division inte this writ petition relates to the closure of MIS Account No.691274 opened by the petitioner on Office in Chennai, by depositing Rs.60,000/-in her name, which was numbered as MIS Acco Air Force Station Post Office at Lohegaon, Pune and as MIS Account No.243994 on being tr The dispute also relates to the closure of MIS Acount No.29069 opened by the petitioner an Shenoy Nagar Post Office in Chennai by depositing Rs.3,00,000/-, which was numbered transferred to Pune and as MIS Account No.243995 on being transferred to Head Post Offic husband shifted their residence to Aluva, the petitioner applied for closure of the aforesai application dated 23.2.2010 for the purpose of raising funds for the treatment of her mot originals of the passbooks along with the application. The fifth respondent closed the said acco cheque dated 23.2.2010 for Rs.2,09,600/-drawn on State Bank of Travancore, Aluva Branch. her husband were informed that the sum of Rs.1,28,000/-which was paid by way of interest in of Rs.22,400/- paid by way of interest in MIS Account No.243994 were recovered from the accounts, for the reason that the accounts were opened in violation of the MIA Rules. The representation before the Post Master, Head Post Office, Aluva with copy to the Senior Sup pointing out that she was entitled for payment of the sum of Rs.3,60,000/- being the aggregat accounts referred to above, with interest from November, 2009. When no reply was forthcomin 29.3.2010, seeking the following reliefs:- i) Declare that the respondents have no right to withhold/deduct any amount, as overpaid inter 1) No.243995 of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh), 2) No.243994 of Rs.60,000/-(Sixty Tho 5th respondent and the deduction so made, is not supported by any provision of law and R Accounts) Rules 1987 cannot be made applicable for withholding the interest already paid to th ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction to the respondents (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Four Hundred), withheld/deducted by the 5th responden Accounts; 1) No.243995 of Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lakh); 2) No.243994 of Rs.60, petitioner with the 5th respondent, with interest from November 2009 till realization, at the rat just. iii) Declare Rule 4 of the Post Office (Monthly Income Accounts) Rules 1987 as arbitrary and d It is contended that under rules 4 and 5 of the MIA Rules, which were in force at the releva opened at Chennai, the petitioner was entitled to deposit a maximum amount of Rs.3,00 Rs.6,00,000/- in a joint account, that the petitioner had deposited the sum of Rs.60,000/-only the three joint accounts was only Rs.3,00,000/-and therefore, the stand taken by the resp contentions are also raised in the writ petition. 4. The fifth respondent has on his own behalf and on behalf of the first respondent filed a coun respondent has in the counter affidavit admitted the fact that all the ten accounts were opene that they were later transferred to Air Force Station Post Office, Pune and still later, to Aluva accounts as set out in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit are extracted below:- The counter affidavit proceeds to state that in view of rule 4 of the Post Office Monthly Incom force at the relevant time, namely in the year 2004, the deposits held by a single individu together with his/her share in the joint account, cannot exceed the prescribed limit of Rs.3,00, joint accounts was Rs.3,00,000/-, that she had thereafter deposited Rs.60,000/-in a single a rule 4 of the MIA Rules and therefore, the interest paid on the two deposits, which were clo deducted when the accounts were closed and the proceeds paid to the petitioner. Various ot counter affidavit. The petitioner has filed an affidavit dated 11.10.2010 in support of I.A.No.14 various contentions by way of reply to the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the fifth r paragraph 12 thereof that she and her husband have not violated any rule and therefore, already drawn, is illegal. 5. I heard Smt.R.Ranjini, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.P.Paramesw General of India appearing for the respondents. Smt.R.Ranjini, learned counsel appearing fo terms of rules 4 and 5 of the MIA Rules, the stand taken by the respondents is not tenable. 5. I heard Smt.R.Ranjini, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.P.Paramesw General of India appearing for the respondents. Smt.R.Ranjini, learned counsel appearing fo terms of rules 4 and 5 of the MIA Rules, the stand taken by the respondents is not tenable. contended that under rules 4 and 5 of the MIA Rules a depositor can open more than one a condition that the deposits in all the accounts taken together shall not exceed Rs.3,00,000/-in a joint account, that the petitioner has not violated rules 4 and 5 of the MIA Rules, that she only in a single account and her share in the joint accounts opened by her and her husband the decision to withhold the interest paid on the two deposits on the ground that the accou opened in violation of the MIA Rules cannot be sustained. Smt.R.Ranjini, learned counsel fo rule 8 of the MIA Rules, as it stood in force at the time when the accounts were opened, it wa made under rule 4, the prescribed limit is exceeded, the Post Office was bound to request t deposit immediately, that even in such cases, it was stipulated that, the excess amount will al from time to time to Post Office Savings Account from the date of deposit of the excess amou the month in which the subscriber was requested to withdraw such excess amount in the acc when all the accounts in the name of the petitioner and her husband were transferred to Lohegaon, Pune, the Post Office should have, if at all the deposits were in excess of the pres and her husband to withdraw the excess deposit, if any, that such a course of action was not also, the impugned action cannot be sustained. Per contra, the learned Assistant Solicito respondents contended relying on paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit and the documents p held by an adult individual in a single account together with his/her share in the joint accounts Rs.3,00,000/-, that the deposit held by the petitioner in a single account together with her sha prescribed limit of Rs.3,00,000/- and therefore, the respondents were entitled under rules 17 a General Rules, 1981 to recover the interest erroneously paid to the petitioner in the two ac bound to refund only the balance amount, after effecting such recovery. 6. 6. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on eit pleadings and the materials on record. The MIA Rules came into force on 15.8.1987. Rule 4 o is extracted below:- "4. Opening of account.-- A depositor may open more than one account under these rules sub accounts taken together shall not exceed rupees one lakh in single account and rupees two la In rule 4 of the MIA Rules, as it originally stood, it was stipulated that a depositor may open m Rules subject to the condition that deposits in all the accounts taken together, shall not exce and rupees two lakhs in joint account. 7. In rule 5 of the MIA Rules, as it originally stood, it was stipulated as follows:- "5. Deposits and withdrawals.-- (1) There shall be only one deposit in the account of five the exceeding rupees one lakh in case of single account and rupees two lakhs in case of joint acco (2) Except as provided in Rule 10, no withdrawal shall be permitted under these rules before t the date of opening of an account." 8. In rule 3 of the MIA Rules it is stipulated as follows:- "3. Application of the Post Office Savings Bank General Rules, 1981 and the Post Office Savin The provisions of the Post Office Savings Bank General Rules, 1981 and the Post Office Sav apply in relation to matters for which no provision has been made in these rules." It is relying on rule 3 of the MIA Rules that the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India c Post Office Savings Bank General Rules, 1981, which empower and entitle the Post Office to opened in contravention of the rules, apply to deposits made under the MIA Rules. 9. Rule 4 of the MIA Rules was amended with effect from 20.1.1989, by Notification No.GSR the Gazette of India (Extraordinary), Part II, Section 3(i), dated 20.1.1989. Rule 4 as am extracted below:- "4. Opening of account.-- A depositor may open more than one account under these rules sub accounts taken together shall not exceed rupees two lakhs in single account and rupees four 110. Rule 4 and and sub rule (1) of rule 5 of the MIA Rules were amended with effect from 1. Rule 4 as am extracted below:- "4. Opening of account.-- A depositor may open more than one account under these rules sub accounts taken together shall not exceed rupees two lakhs in single account and rupees four 110. Rule 4 and and sub rule (1) of rule 5 of the MIA Rules were amended with effect from 1. dated 1.2.2000 published in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary), Part II, Section 3(i) dated amended with effect from 1.2.2000, is extracted below:- "4. Opening of account.-- A depositor may open more than one account under these rules sub accounts taken together shall not exceed rupees three lakhs in case of single account and rup Rule 5 of the MIA Rules as amended with effect from 1.2.2000, is extracted below:- "5. Deposits and withdrawals.-- (1) There shall be only one deposit in the account of six tho exceeding rupees three lakhs in case of single account and rupees six lakhs in case of joint ac (2) Except as provided in Rule 10, no withdrawal shall be permitted under these rules before t the date of opening of an account." 11. Sub-rule (1) of rule 5 of the MIA Rules was again amended with effect from 18.7.2000, 18.7.2000 published in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary), Part II Section 3(i) dated 18. amended with effect from 18.7.2000, is extracted below:- "5(1) There shall be only one deposit in the account in the multiple of one thousand rupees case of single account and rupees six lakhs in case of joint account. (2) Except as provided in Rule 10, no withdrawal shall be permitted under these rules before t the date of opening of an account." 12. Rule 4 of the MIA Rules was again amended by introducing a Note below it with No.G.S.R.No.706(E) dated 5.9.2000, published in Gazette of India (Extraordinary) Part II, Sect of the MIA Rules as it stood when the petitioner and her husband opened the accounts in extracted below:- "4. Opening of account.-- A depositor may open more than one account under these rules sub accounts taken together shall not exceed rupees three lakhs in case of single account and rup Note-- For the purpose of maximum balance, the depositor's share in the balance of a joint one-third of such balance according to the account is held by two adults or three adults. 5. 5. Deposits and withdrawals.-- (1) There shall be only one deposit in the account in the exceeding rupees three lakhs in case of single account and rupees six lakhs in case of joint ac (2) Except as provided in Rule 10, no withdrawal shall be permitted under these rules before t the date of opening of an account." 13. Still later, rule 4 of the MIA Rules was again amended with effect from 1.8.2007 by subst lakh" with the words "four lakh fifty thousand" and "nine lakh" respectively, by Notification No the Gazette of India (Extraordinary) Part II, Section 3 (i) dated 1.8.2007. By the very same n was also amended with effect from 1.8.2007, by substituting the words "one thousand", "thre "one thousand five hundred", "four lakh fifty thousand" and "nine lakh" respectively. Rules 4 with effect from 1.8.2007, are extracted below:- "4. Opening of account.-- A depositor may open more than one account under these rules sub accounts taken together shall not exceed rupees four lakh fifty thousand in case of single ac joint account. Note-- For the purpose of maximum balance, the depositor's share in the balance of a joint one-third of such balance according to the account is held by two adults or three adults. 5. Deposits and withdrawals.-- (1) There shall be only one deposit in the account in the m rupees not exceeding rupees four lakh fifty thousand in case of single account and rupees nine (2) Except as provided in Rule 10, no withdrawal shall be permitted under these rules before t the date of opening of an account." 14. Five single accounts of Rs.50,000/-each in the name of the petitioner's husband were o Offices at Chennai. He opened yet another single account in his name for Rs.50,000/-on Chennai. Going by rules 4 and 5 of the MIA Rules as they stood on the said dates, all the six deposits in multiples of Rs.1,000/- and below Rs.1,00,000/-. The single account for Rs.60,000 on 14.3.2005 and the two joint accounts of Rs.1,50,000/-each and the joint account of Rs petitioner and her husband, which were opened on 13.7.2004, were also in accordance with then stood. The single account for Rs.60,000 on 14.3.2005 and the two joint accounts of Rs.1,50,000/-each and the joint account of Rs petitioner and her husband, which were opened on 13.7.2004, were also in accordance with then stood. However, relying on the Note to rule 4 of the MIA Rules which was introduced w and 18 of the Post Office Savings Bank General Rules, 1981, the respondents recovered th single account and to her and her husband in the joint account, both of which were closed o the accounts were opened, till the date of closure. The stand taken by the respondents is tha holder along with her husband in three joint accounts wherein the aggregate amount depos have opened a single account in her name on 14.3.2005 for the reason that the deposits together with his/her share in the joint accounts cannot exceed the prescribed limit of Rs.3,00 from 1.2.2000, till rules 4 and 5 of the MIA Rules were amended with effect from 1.8.2007, issue that arises for consideration is whether the decision taken by the respondents to recover 15. In rule 4 of the MIA Rules as amended with effect from 1.2.2000, it was stipulated that account subject to the condition that the deposits in all accounts taken together shall not e account and Rs.6,00,000/- in case of joint account. The petitioner admittedly had opened o Rs.60,000/- under the MIA Rules. The aggregate of the amounts deposited by the petitione accounts is only Rs.6,00,000/-. The respondents have no case that the joint account was o However, relying on the Note to rule 4 which was introduced with effect from 1.9.2000, the re balance which a depositor can have in his/her individual account and joint account is only Rs the said contention is plainly untenable. Rule 4 of the MIA Rules as it originally stood permitt account in his/her individual name. The only restriction on that right was that the deposits in a not exceed Rs.1,00,000/- in case of single account and Rs.2,00,000/- in case of joint account. and Rs.4,00,000/- respectively with effect from 20.1.1989, to Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.6,00,000/-and to Rs.4,50,000/- and Rs.9,00,000/-respectively, with effect from 1.8.2007. It is not in disp petitioner in the single account opened by her on 14.3.2005 under the MIA Rules was only Rs the three joint accounts opened by her and her husband on 13.7.2004 was only Rs.6,00,00 accounts was only Rs.3,00,000/-. and Rs.4,00,000/- respectively with effect from 20.1.1989, to Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.6,00,000/-and to Rs.4,50,000/- and Rs.9,00,000/-respectively, with effect from 1.8.2007. It is not in disp petitioner in the single account opened by her on 14.3.2005 under the MIA Rules was only Rs the three joint accounts opened by her and her husband on 13.7.2004 was only Rs.6,00,00 accounts was only Rs.3,00,000/-. As per the rules in force at the relevant time, the deposits deposits were also in multiples of one thousand rupees and within the limits as stipulated therefore, be said that the accounts were opened in violation of rules 4 and 5 of the MIA Ru rule 4 of the MIA Rules, introduced with effect from 1.9.2000, that for the purpose of maximum balance of a joint account shall be taken as one half or one third of such balance according a three adults, cannot in my opinion restrict or dilute the effect of the main provision in rule 4 of is very clear and is not ambiguous. (Vide Punjab State Electricity Board Ltd., v. Zora Singh V.B.Prasad v. Manager, P.M.D.U.P.School, AIR 2007 SC 2053). The Note below rule 4 of the stipulation to the effect that if a depositor has a share in a joint account, whether it be one ha reckoned for the purpose of computing the maximum amount which he/she can deposit in his rule (1) of rule 5 of the MIA Rules as it stood in force at the relevant time, it was stipulated tha account in the multiple of one thousand rupees, not exceeding rupees three lakh in case of case of joint account. Rule 4 of the MIA Rules however, permits the depositor to open more t below rule 4 has to be understood to mean that depending on the number of depositors in account stands, the share of an individual in the joint account shall be taken as one third or purpose of arriving at the number of joint accounts which a depositor can open under the Office or in different Post Offices. In the instant case, the total amount standing in the name o her name was only Rs.60,000/- and her share in the joint accounts was only Rs.3,00,000/-, w limits. I am therefore of the considered opinion that the stand taken by the respondents cannot 16. In the instant case, the total amount standing in the name o her name was only Rs.60,000/- and her share in the joint accounts was only Rs.3,00,000/-, w limits. I am therefore of the considered opinion that the stand taken by the respondents cannot 16. There is also yet another aspect of the matter, which as contended by the learned counsel As stated above, though the accounts were in different Post Offices at Chennai, all of them Post Office at Lohegaon, Pune in July 2006 and later on 20.2.2010, to Aluva Head Post Offic Rules, as it stood in force when the petitioner and her husband opened the accounts for the year 2006 and 2010 when the accounts were transferred to Pune and Aluva respectively, it is soon as it comes to the notice that a deposit made under rule 4 by a subscriber exceeds the such Post Office shall request the subscriber to withdraw the excess deposit immediately. In s the excess amount referred to in sub-rule (6) shall carry interest at the rate applicable from ti Account and shall be payable to such subscriber on such amount. In sub-rule (8) of rule 8 it is in sub-rule (7) shall be admissible from the date of deposit of the excess amount till the end which the subscriber has been requested to withdraw such excess amount in the account. R force when the petitioner and her husband opened the different accounts under the MIA Rules "8. In sub-rule (8) of rule 8 it is in sub-rule (7) shall be admissible from the date of deposit of the excess amount till the end which the subscriber has been requested to withdraw such excess amount in the account. R force when the petitioner and her husband opened the different accounts under the MIA Rules "8. Interest of deposit.-- (1) The deposit made under these rules shall bear interest at the rate o (a) 12 per cent per annum in respect of deposits made on or after the 15th day of August, 1992; (b) 14 per cent per annum in respect of deposits made on or after the 24th day of April, 1992 1993; (c) 13 per cent per annum in respect of deposits made on or after the 2nd day of Septem January, 1999; (d) 12 per cent per annum in respect of deposits made on or after the 1st day of January, 199 2000; (e) 11 per cent per annum in respect of deposits made on or after the 15th day of January, 2 2001; (f) 9.5 per cent per annum in respect of deposits made on or after the 1st day of March, 2001 b (g) 9 per cent per annum in respect of deposits made on or after the 1st day of March, 2002." (2) The interest shall be payable monthly to the depositor on completion of a month from the d (3) If so authorised, interest payable monthly shall be deposited by the Post Office in the sav the Post Office where deposit is held subject to the condition that by so depositing the in savings account is not exceeded. (4) If the interest payable every month is not claimed by a depositor, such interest will not earn (5) Interest shall be rounded off to nearest multiple of rupee one and for this purpose any treated as rupee one and any amount less than 50 paise shall be ignored. (6) A Post Office shall, as soon as it comes to the notice that a deposit made under rule 4 b ceilings specified therein, shall request the depositor to withdraw the excess deposit immediate Explanation.-- "Post Office" means and includes a Head or Sub-Post Office. (7) The excess amount referred to in sub-rule (6) shall carry an interest at the rate applicabl Savings Account and shall be payable to such depositor on such amount. (7) The excess amount referred to in sub-rule (6) shall carry an interest at the rate applicabl Savings Account and shall be payable to such depositor on such amount. (8) The interest referred to in sub-rule (7) shall be admissible from the date of deposit of the e preceding the month in which the depositor has been requested to withdraw such excess amo On the terms of sub-rules (6), (7) and (8) of rule 8 of the MIA Rules, even if the deposits wer subscriber is entitled to interest at the rates applicable from time to time to the Post Office Sav of the excess amount till the end of the month preceding the month in which the subscriber w amount. In the instant case, no action as required under sub-rule (6) of rule 8 of the MIA Rule The petitioner cannot therefore, be penalised for the lapse, if any, on the part of the fourth res below rule 4 of the MIA Rules applies as contended by the respondents, as the petitioner's Rs.3,00,000/- on the relevant date, the respondents could not have deducted the interest pai names of the petitioner and her husband. Even if the stand of the respondents is accepted, t paid on the deposit of Rs.60,000/- only. However, in the view that I have taken, the petitioners 17. It is also relevant in this context to note that after the accounts were opened, rules 4 and 5 effect from 1.8.2007, raising the limit in the case of single account to Rs.4,50,000/-and to Rs. As on 23.2.2010 when the two accounts were closed, the total amount in all the accounts stan Rs.3,60,000/-, which is well below the limit of Rs.4,50,000/-stipulated in rules 4 and 5 of the The accounts were transferred from various Post Offices at Chennai to Air Force Station Post They were transferred to Aluva Head Post Office in February, 2010. For all practical purposes Pune and Aluva and fresh account numbers were given. At least on the date of transfer to were within limits, even going by the stand of the respondents. I therefore, find no reason interest in the two accounts, which were closed on 23.2.2010. 18. A similar issue arose for consideration before a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court i India, AIR 2000 Orissa 32. The petitioners therein opened nine joint accounts under the MIA R Post Office, Bhubaneswar. I therefore, find no reason interest in the two accounts, which were closed on 23.2.2010. 18. A similar issue arose for consideration before a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court i India, AIR 2000 Orissa 32. The petitioners therein opened nine joint accounts under the MIA R Post Office, Bhubaneswar. The first joint account was opened on 3.6.1994 by depositing Rs.1 account was also opened to facilitate payment of interest. Thereafter four more joint account still later, on 28.12.1994, four more joint accounts were opened in addition to another savi crediting the interest payable in the deposits in that account. Three years later an objectio deposited the sum of Rs.4,08,000/-in excess and they were called upon to refund the sum o interest. They challenged the demand by filing a writ petition in this High Court. A Division noticing that the pass books reflected the total amount deposited in the various accounts and of the total amount deposited by the petitioners in the various accounts, proceeded to cons section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. After a survey on the case law on the point and Pasayat.J, (as His Lordship then was), speaking for the Bench, held that the case on hand is n Contract Act, 1872 and therefore, the direction for recovery is not sustainable. For the reasons and declare that recovery of the interest paid in the two accounts, which were closed on Consequently I direct respondents 1 and 5 to pay to the petitioner the sum of Rs.1,50,40 accounts which were closed on 23.2.2010, within two weeks from the date on which the petit judgment before the fifth respondent, failing which the petitioner will be entitled to realise from together with interest at 9% per annum on the sum of Rs.1,50,400/- from 23.2.2010, till p respective costs.