Allowed

R.Thiagarajan v. Deputy Superintendent of

Madras HC19 Jul 2018WP/16831/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus for permission to operate bank lockers during an investigation. Court held lockers cannot be blocked without justifiable cause backed by a statutory order. Directed banks to permit operation; CBI can approach trial court if investigation requires material.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 3 and 4 directed to permit petitioner to operate the lockers. Directions to CBI to reply to petitioner's request.

R.Thiagarajan Vs Deputy Superintendent of — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 19.07.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶5

W.P.No.16831 of 2018

¶6

R.Thiagarajan ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1 Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti-Corruption Bureau, No.26, Haddows Road, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai-6. 2 Inspector of Police, Special Police Establishment, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti-Corruption Bureau, No.26, Haddows Road, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai-6. 3 The Chief Manager, Bank of India, T.Nagar Branch, Chennai-600 017. 4 The Chief Manager, Central Bank of India, T.Nagar Branch, Chennai-600 017. ... Respondents

¶9

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 to 4 from interfering with the right of the petitioner to operate the locker account No.707 maintained with Bank of India, T.Nagar Branch, Chennai and Locker No.616 maintained with the Central Bank of India.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Xavier Felix For Respondents1 & 2 : Mr.K.Srinivasan Special Public Prosecutor for CBI

¶11

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to operate the locker, bearing Account No.707 maintained by the petitioner with the Bank of India, situated at T.Nagar Branch, Chennai and Locker No.616 maintained with the Central Bank of India.

¶14

2 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent/CBI.

¶15

3 The grievances of the petitioner is that during the investigation, the respondent-CBI had conducted search of the bank lockers jointly held in the names of the petitioner and his wife Sujatha Thiagarajan at Central Bank of India, T.Nagar branch, Chennai and Bank of India, T.Nagar branch. After taking inventory of the material found in those lockers, the Investigating Officer has handed over the key back to the petitioner with a copy of the inventory list. No instructions restraining to operate the bank locker was issued neither to the petitioner nor to the banks. When the petitioner went to operate the lockers, the authorities of the respondent/Banks did not allow him to operate the lockers citing CBI investigation.

¶16

4 The Central Bank of India had given a written direction to get permission from the CBI to operate the locker. Therefore, the petitioner has sent letter to the Superintendent of Police, SPE, CBI, ACB, Chennai and the Inspector of Police, SPE, CBI, ACB, Chennai on 05.02.2018 explaining the difficulties he is facing due to refusal of the Bank Authorities to operate his lockers and requested them to instruct the Bank Authorities to allow him to operate the respective lockers.

¶17

5 When the matter came up for admission on 06.07.2018, this Court adjourned the matter to 19.07.2018 so as to enable the learned Special Public Prosecutor to get instructions and file counter. If any of the objects found in these two lockers are the subject matter of trial.

¶18

6 Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that he need some more time to file counter, since the Investigating Officer is in this case has been recently transferred.

¶19

7 However, this Court, considering the averments made in the affidavit as well as the records furnished by way of typedset of papers, is of the opinion that the lockers of the customer cannot be prevented from operation, unless, there is some justifiable cause and backed by an order passed by the statutory authority. From the reply of Bank of India dated

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

13.11.2017, this Court finds that the bank authorities prevented the petitioner from operating his locker, citing CBI investigation. No specific instruction from CBI seems to have issued restraining the locker operation. The petitioner has requested the Investigating Agency on 05.03.2018 to give suitable instructions to the Bank Authorities. But, till date, the Investigating Agency has neither replied to his request nor instructed the authorities of the respective banks.

¶22

8 On perusal of the records, it appears that the search of the locker has taken place on 04.09.2015. On completion of investigation, Final Report has been filed on 07.07.2017. After waiting for filing of the Final Report, the petitioner seeks permission to operate the lockers, since the material found in the locker are not the subject matter of the criminal prosecution. This Court has to point out that, when no specific order from CBI directing the bank authorities restraining the petitioner to operate the lockers, the direction of the Bank of India dated 13.07.2017 requesting the customer, namely the petitioner herein to get permission from CBI is baseless. The bank owes some respect and duty to the customers, from whom they are collecting the charges. When there is no specific order or direction from CBI restraining the petitioner from operating his locker, the authorities of the bank ought not to have insisted upon the petitioner to get clearance from CBI. But that cannot be an excuse for CBI failure to respond the petitioner's request dated 05.03.2018 seeking clearance from CBI. For the reasons stated above, this Court directs the respondents 3 and 4 to permit the petitioner to operate the lockers. If, for any reason, the first and second respondent still of the opinion that any material found in the locker is required, it is always open to them to approach the trial Court for appropriate orders.

¶23

9 With the above direction, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar(CS-VIII)

¶26

//True Copy//

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

rpl

¶29

¶30

1 Deputy Superintendent of Police,

¶31

Special Police Establishment,

¶32

Central Bureau of Investigation,

¶33

Anti-Corruption Bureau,

¶34

No.26, Haddows Road, Shastri Bhavan,

¶35

Chennai-6.

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶37

2 Inspector of Police,
Special Police Establishment,
Central Bureau of Investigation,
Anti-Corruption Bureau,
No.26, Haddows Road, Shastri Bhavan,
Chennai-6.
3 The Chief Manager,
Bank of India,
T.Nagar Branch, Chennai-600 017.
4 The Chief Manager,
Central Bank of India,
T.Nagar Branch,
Chennai-600 017.
5 The Special Public Prosecutor for CBI,
High Court, Madras.
W.P.No.16831 of 2018
TR(03/08/2018)

¶38

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

R.Thiagarajan v. Deputy Superintendent of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Thiagarajan v. Deputy Superintendent of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukumar Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

Ramam Vs the Inspector of Police

P.Kulandaivelu, MALE/68 Years Vs State Represented by

S.P.Subramanian, Vs State Represented by

V.G.K.Moorthy, Aged 66 Years, Vs the State Rep. by

Paramasivam Vs Inspector of Police