2001 (8) TMI 1283 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
1. Refusal to return the balance amount in National Savings Scheme Account.
2. Legality of denying the request to close the account and return the balance amount.
3. Application of the principle of estoppel in administrative law.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a petition seeking a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ to challenge the respondent's refusal to return the balance amount in the National Savings Scheme Account. The petitioner had opened the account in 1988 and repeatedly requested the closure of the account and return of the balance, which the respondents refused. The court issued notices and eventually, the matter was heard, leading to the judgment.

2. The petitioner's advocate relied on a previous judgment by Justice M.R. Calla, emphasizing the principle of estoppel. The court held that the respondent's action was arbitrary, unreasonable, and illegal under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court referred to various legal sources, including Professor Wade's Administrative Law and C.K. Thakker's Law of Writs, to support the application of estoppel in this case. The court concluded that the respondent's denial of the petitioner's request to close the account and return the balance was against the law.

3. The court extensively discussed the principle of estoppel in administrative law, citing relevant legal texts and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a related case. The court emphasized that estoppel is a rule of equity aimed at preventing unfair conduct and ensuring justice. By applying the principle of estoppel, the court found the respondent's actions to be illegal and directed the closure of the petitioner's account with due interest on all deposits. The court ordered the respondent to pay the amount within one month and disposed of the special civil application in favor of the petitioner, making the rule absolute and not awarding any costs in this case.