T.S. Doabia, J. - Petitioners wanted to avail benefit of a scheme run by the Department of post. This is known as monthly income scheme. Petitioners had deposited a total amount of Rs. 10,80,000/-. As per the petitioners they were given interest in accordance with the scheme for some period. Thereafter, respondents formed a view that amount which could be deposited under the monthly income scheme is not to exceed Rs. 4.08 lakhs in a joint account and Rs. 2.04 lakhs in an individual account. Taking note of this fact amount to the extent of Rs. 4.08 lakhs was retained by the Post office and remaining amount was refunded. While making refund the respondents deducted a sum of Rs. 1,62,305/- and also another amount of Rs. 25350/-. Petitioners have come to this court. It is stated that the amount having been accepted by the respondents and the petitioners being not in any way made any misrepresentation cannot be put to disadvantageous position.

2. Stand taken by the respondents is that under the Monthly income Scheme in an individual account, maximum amount which could be deposited was to the, extent of Rs. 2.04 lakhs and in a joint account it was to the extent of Rs. 4.08 lakhs. As petitioners had deposited an amount which was in excess of the permissible amount they were not entitled to the interest. Interest paid to the petitioners on the excess amount has been withdrawn and the remaining amount has been returned. The stand of the respondents is that the petitioner were entitled to interest under the scheme only on a sum of Rs. 4.08 lakhs. It is submitted that on the remaining amount deposited in excess petitioners were not entitled to any interest at all. It is accordingly submitted that the amount was refunded and while do so interest which could not be paid under the scheme has not been paid. Commission paid to the agents has also been deducted. It is this aspect of the matter which is challenged:-

(i) it is submitted there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioners.

(ii) that the amounts were got deposited through the same agent with the same post office.

(iii) that the deposits made through an agent would bind the principal.

(iv) that it was at that time when the deposit was made the respondents should have examined as to whether amount is to be accepted or not.

3. It is thus submitted that after having kept the amount for more than two years petitioners could not be deprived of the interest component. It is accordingly submitted that till amount remained with the Respondents the petitioners are entitled to interest. Respondents, however, submit that what has been done has been done in the exercise of the power conferred on them under the Para 5 of the Monthly Income Account Scheme. For facility of reference relevant paragraph are being quoted below:-

5(13) Opening of MIS Account-obtaining of declaration from the depositor-At the time of investment in a MIS Account a declaration may be obtained from the depositor in the account opening from (SB-3) to the effect that his deposits in all the accounts taken together do not exceed the prescribed limits.

Rule 159(1) of POSB Manual Volume-I and D.G. Posts letter No 50-1/97-SB dated 4.7.1997.

14. Deposits in excess of prescribed limits in MIS accounts: If it is noticed by the post office that the depositor has opened more than one account either in the same post office or in different post offices and exceeded the prescribed limit of deposits the accounts which exceed the limit will be treated as irregular accounts. These accounts will be got closed without interest and interest already paid will be received/adjusted. The commission paid to the agent on these irregular accounts will also be recovered."

4. I am of the opinion that the aforementioned paragraphs cannot operate to the prejudice of the citizen of this country. Respondents should have examined what is said to have been examined by them latter on, at the initial stage. As a matter of fact similar matter was considered by this court in OWP No. 233/93 decided on 5.2.1999. What is said in the above case is being quoted below:-

"I am of the opinion that the objection as to whether the certificates could be taken by the petitioner Sanastha or not should have been gone into at the time when the certificates are issued. This having not been done, the respondents are wrong in their approach that the certificates were wrongly issued and that the petitioner organisation is not entitled to claim the benefits of interest which had accrued on the principal amount.

5. It be seen that even if the position as stated by the respondents is taken as correct even then the petitioner would be entitled to the interest. In case the petitioner had invested the said amount in some other security it would have fetched them the same or even higher interest. It is, a case where the petitioner Sanastha has been wrongly deprived of the benefits for which it is entitled to. In these Circumstances the petitioners, Sanastha would be entitled to claim the interest from the respondent-authorities.

6. The rule of equity that a party is entitled to restitution when a contract is found to be void has attained statutory recognition in the shape of sections 65 and 72 of the Contract Act. A party who has received some benefit under the contract which is found to be void is bound to restore the benefit received by him to the other side. This is part of the doctrine of restitutions in integra. This doctrine is found mentioned in the decision reported as A.R.G.K, and Co and ors. v. Maddi Seetharamayya, AIR 1958 AP 427 . In case reported as the State of Mysore v. Tara Chand Venhatachand Shaha, AIR 1973 Mysore 333 it was observed that a person who has received benefit under agreement found to be void must compensate the other side. Reliance was placed on decision, given by the Supreme Court in cases reported as State of West Bengal v. B.K. Mondal and Sons, AIR 1962 SC 779 and Mulam Chand v. State of Madya Pradesh, AIR 1960 SC 1218. In both the decisions the right to claim compensation was recognised by the Supreme court of India. Same view would be found in an earlier decision of the Patna High Court in case reported as Union of India v. Preeti Kumar, AIR 1958 Patna 203. In case reported as Union of India v. Sahab Singh, AIR 1977 Allahabad 277 it was held that the benevolent provisions contained in section 70 would be attracted. Again in case Hindustan Construction Company v. State of Bihar, AIR 1963 Patna 254 the view expressed is that party getting benefit is bound to compensate even if the contract, is found to be bad. Thus the equitable principle that a party receiving benefit is bound to restore the same would be attracted to the facts of this case.

7. Petitioners were at no point of time concealed any fact. Accounts were opened through an agent. These accounts were with the same post office. What is done by the agent would be deemed to be an act of the principal. As the respondents allowed the petitioners to deposit the amount then they are supposed to pay interest at least upto the date of refund. Respondents could not act as a judge in their own cause. They could not deduct the amount. Deduction of the amount would be bad. As indicated above rule of equity is in favour of the citizen of this country. Petitioners being not in any way responsible for misleading the post office cannot be put to a disadvantageous situation. Petitioners are entitled to interest as was allowed by the respondents. Action to deduct the amount from the principal amount cannot be sustained. As to on what basis commission paid to the agent has also been deducted from the petitioners is not understandable. Agents were agents of the post office and not of the petitioners. Let amount which stands deducted be paid to the petitioners. This would be done within a period of one month from the date copy of the order passed by this court is made available by the petitioners to the respondents. In case this is not done petitioners would be entitled to interest at the rate of 15% p.a. Interest would be payable by the person responsible for the delay. It is made clear that in case post office feels that department has wrongly been burdened they would be at liberty to recover the amount either from the agent or from the persons who was responsible for opening the accounts. Petitioners cannot be put at fault. This petition is allowed and disposed of in the manner indicated above.