Judgment : 1. The petitioner is a Society, who claims interest on a Term Deposit made with the 5th respondent. The petitioner's contention is that the Society had been remitting money in the Post Office Savings Account for various periods and the petitioner was also granted interest under the scheme "National Savings Programme". However, with respect to a deposit made on 30.01.2007 when the deposit matured, it is contended that the principal amount alone was returned and no interest was paid. The letter rejecting the claim for interest is produced as Exhibit P4 and assailed in the writ petition. 2. The reason for rejecting the claim for interest, as is seen from Exhibit P4, is that the Term Deposit Rules under the scheme does not permit a deposit from a Co-operative Society. The petitioner's contention is that if they were informed of the same, they would never have made the deposit. 3. Looking at the records in the writ petition, it is evident that after making the deposit on 30.01.2007, an audit was conducted by the P & T Audit wing in the Post Offices under Kottarakkara Head Post Office. The audit was conducted between 09-11-2007 and 24-11-2007. As is evident from Exhibit R1(c), the Inspection Report, the irregular opening of the TD account in the name of the petitioner-Society was noticed in the said report and it was also directed that the irregularity be cured. It is evident that as per the Inspection Report, the petitioner was informed of the ineligibility of the Society to hold a Term Deposit and earn interest thereon under the "National Savings Programme", which is clear from Exhibit R1(d). Exhibit R1(d) is a resolution of the Society, based on which a request was made to the concerned Post Office, to regularize the account so as to permit interest to be granted on the Term Deposit; so deposited by the petitioner with the 5th respondent under the National Savings Programme. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that first of all the deposit was made in the name of the President and Secretary and not in the name of the Co-operative Society. Evidently such an argument cannot be countenanced now, since the Co-operative Society has filed the writ petition claiming interest on the Term Deposit. Obviously the deposit was made for the benefit of the Co-operative Society, which is interdicted by the Scheme itself. Evidently such an argument cannot be countenanced now, since the Co-operative Society has filed the writ petition claiming interest on the Term Deposit. Obviously the deposit was made for the benefit of the Co-operative Society, which is interdicted by the Scheme itself. It is also clear that the petitioner-Society was made aware of the ineligibility to make a Term Deposit under the Scheme, in 2008 itself. Probably the petitioner could have, at that point of time, claimed interest for the period prior to such information, which, however, the petitioner has chosen not to do. The petitioner continued the deposit with the Post Office under the Scheme till its maturity and then, again, raised a claim for interest. By that time the cause of action which enured to the Society on the denial of interest in 2008 became stale. In any event, a claim for interest cannot be validly agitated in a petition under Article 226. Be that as it may, petitioner's claim can only relate back to the year 2008. After that the petitioner willingly continued the deposit, though aware of the ineligibility to interest. The petitioner having chosen not to challenge the denial of interest which was informed to the petitioner in the year 2008 itself, cannot claim interest on maturity, since the continuance of the deposit was with the knowledge that no interest will accrue in the deposit. For the reasons aforesaid, writ petition fails. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.