Sateesh Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

¶1

$~71

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 9839/2026 SATEESH KUMAR .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Mr. Rajat Joneja, Mr. Yash Varma, Mr. Abhinav Kaushik, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Brijesh Kumar Tamber, CGSC with Mr. Vinay Singh Bist, Ms. Chanchala Tiwari, Advs. For UOI Mr. Santosh Kumar Rout, SC for R-5

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH O R D E R

¶9

% 21.07.2026

¶10

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers: -

¶11

“a. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, thereby directing Respondent No. 5 (Punjab National bank) to forthwith defreeze the Petitioner’s aforesaid bank account and restore full operational access thereto.

¶12

b. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records and quashing the freeze instructions/liens issued by Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and executed by Respondent No. 5 in respect of the Petitioner’s Savings Account No. 0780000100209487 maintained with Punjab National Bank, Branch Majhaulia, District - West Champaran, Bihar…”

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/07/2026 at 11:37:24

¶15

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner maintains a bank account bearing Account No. 0780000100209487 with the respondent No. 5/Punjab National Bank wherein on 25.01.2026, the petitioner found out that his bank account has been blocked as a transaction has failed. Upon attempting to inquire, it came to the petitioner’s knowledge that his account has been frozen on the basis of complaints received from various Police Station under the jurisdiction of Respondent’s No. 2,3 and 4.

¶16

The petitioner in February 2026 vide emails and phone to the respondents tried reporting his grievance to resolve the issue but it did not lead to the defreezing of the account and hence, the present petition has been filed.

¶17

For the said reasons, issue notice.

¶18

Mr. Tamber, learned CGSC accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1/Union of India and Ms. Vairagi, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No. 5/Punjab National Bank.

¶19

Ms. Vairagi learned counsel has handed over a document in court today, which shows that the disputed transaction is of Rs. 3,191/-.

¶20

I am of the view that freezing of an account is an action entailing serious consequences as it will result in extreme hardships and inconvenience to the petitioner. Therefore, the respondent No. 5 cannot be permitted to take such harsh measures without any application of mind.

¶21

Additionally, a coordinate bench of this Court has made categorical observations in paragraph No. 19 of its Order dated 16.01.2026 titled as Malabar Gold and Diamond Limited & Ors. v. Union of India &

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/07/2026 at 11:37:24

¶24

Ors., W.P.(C) 4198/2025 , that actions of blanket freeze in cases where the account holder is neither an accused nor a suspect, are manifestly arbitrary and in clear violation of Article 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶25

For the said reasons, the impugned action of account freezing in the present case is disproportionate and an arbitrary exercise of power thereby striking a blow at the fundamental rights of the petitioner. The impugned action is without due application of mind as anindiscriminate blanket freeze has been imposed on the account of the petitioner for an allegedly suspicious entry of a meagreamount. Therefore, the action deserves to be set aside.

¶26

Since the disputed amount if Rs. 3,191/-, the bank account of the petitioner bearing Account No. 0780000100209487 with the respondent No. 5 Punjab National Bank, shall be defreezed subject to the lien of Rs. 3,191/-.

¶27

Furthermore, the petitioner is at liberty to initiate action under the Standard Operating Procedure of the respondent No. 6 for the lien of amount of Rs. 3,191/-.

¶28

In view of the order passed, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the present writ petition and the same is disposed of in the above terms.

¶29

The document handed over in Court today is taken on record.

¶30

JASMEET SINGH, J

¶31

JULY 21, 2026/sp

¶32

This is a digitally signed order.

¶33

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/07/2026 at 11:37:24

Sateesh Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sateesh Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Samugh Vs Chairman, Town Vending Committee and Ors.

Satya Prakash Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Namita Gupta Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Ritu Dhingra Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Atul Dikshit Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S. Prime Infrapack Pvt. Ltd. Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr.

Sudershan Kumar & Anr. Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Ors.

Vimal Kumar Binwani Vs Commissioner of Customs

Kaila Devi College of Education & Anr. Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Aadinath Academy Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Shree Gyanmangalam Trust Shree Gyanmandir Pre School Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Bharat Pustak Bhandar Vs Sammaan Capital & Anr.

Siddhivinayak Shikshan Prasark Mandals R.K. B.Ed. College Vs National Council for Teacher Education and Anr.

Ram Ji College of Pharmacy Vs Pharmacy Council of India