S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA,J. - (1.) IN all these cases, as common question of law involved and decision contained in letter dated 28th August. 2000 is under challenge, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) TO decide the issue, it is necessary to discuss the relevant facts, as mentioned hereunder. The Respondent Unit Trust of India U.T.I, for short -floated Raj Lakshmi Unit Scheme, 1992 R.U.S. 1992 for short -exclusively for minor girl child upto the age of five years who were allowed to take part under the R.U. Scheme. 1992. The petitioners fathers/or writ petitioner invested certain amount in the name of female child which was to continue under the scheme for about 20 years. In terms with the said scheme, a Sum of Rs. 1,000/ - invested in the name of female child would have become Rs. 21,000/ -after 20 years. However, in the mid stream, the Respondent U.T.I. Board of Trustees having taken decision to terminate R.U. Scheme, 1992 w.e.f. 1st October, 2000, as communicated vide letter dated 20th August, 2000, such decision has been challenged by petitioners.
(3.) ACCORDING to the counsel for the petitioners, the decision aforesaid contained in letter dated 20th August. 2000 asking the investers to take back the terminal proceeds or to reinvest the same in any other scheme of U.T.I, is unreasonable, arbitrary and opposed to public policy.;