Disposed

Junaid Ahmed v. Reserve bank of India

Madras HC22 May 2024WP(MD)/11315/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition was filed seeking direction to unfreeze bank accounts. The High Court held the statutory authorities failed in their duty by not considering the petitioner's representation and directed them to consider it on merits within two weeks without adjudicating merits themselves.

What did the court decide?

Directions to respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 02.05.2024 on merits and pass appropriate orders within two weeks.

Junaid Ahmed Vs Reserve bank of India — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

WP(MD) No.11315 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 22.05.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.11315 of 2024

Junaid Ahmed

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.Reserve Bank of India

¶11

Rep. by the Deputy General Manager, RBI, 16, Rajaji Salai, Fort Glacis,

¶12

Chennai,

¶13

Tamil Nadu, [email protected], Pin – 600 001.

¶14

2.The Branch Manager

¶15

ICICI Bank, Poonamallee Branch,

¶16

Chennai.

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

1/7

¶19

WP(MD) No.11315 of 2024

¶20

3.The Branch Manager

¶21

HDFC Bank,

¶22

Ambur Branch, No.10/B, Sri Narayana Krishna Complex, MC Street, Ambur,

¶23

Vellore District.

¶24

4.The Inspector of Police

¶25

CCD – III, Virudhunagar.

¶26

... Respondents

¶27

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶28

of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to unfreeze my Current A/c.No.154605003372 savings Bank A/c.No.154601514480 in 2^nd respondent Bank and to unfreeze petitioner Savings Bank A/c.50100105409820 in 3^rd respondent bank by considering the petitioner's representation dated 02.05.2024.

¶29

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Ramnath

¶30

For Respondents: Mr.RMS.Sethuraman – for R4

¶31

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶32

2/7

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

WP(MD) No.11315 of 2024

¶35

ORDER

¶36

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking a

¶37

Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to unfreeze my Current

¶38

A/c.No.154605003372 savings Bank A/c.No. 154601514480 in 2^nd respondent Bank and to unfreeze petitioner Savings Bank A/c.50100105409820 in 3^rd respondent bank by considering the petitioner's representation dated 02.05.2024.

¶39

2. Heard Mr.B.Ramnath, learned counsel for the

¶40

petitioner and Mr.RMS.Sethuraman, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the fourth respondent.

¶41

3 . In view of the order now passed by this Court, notice

¶42

to the respondents 1 to 3 is dispensed with.

¶43

4 . By consent of both parties, this Writ Petition is taken

¶44

up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

¶45

3/7

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶47

WP(MD) No.11315 of 2024

¶48

5 . The petitioner herein had given a representation to

¶49

the respondents on 02.05.2024 seeking to unfreeze the Current Account of the petitioner in 2 nd respondent Bank and Savings Bank Account in 3 rd respondent bank. Since the said representation was not considered by the respondents so far, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶50

6 . It is needless to point out that whenever a

¶51

representation of this nature is made to a Statutory Authority, there

¶52

is a duty cast upon the respondents to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other, instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely. As such, non-consideration of the representation by the Statutory Authority would amount to dereliction of duty. The failure on the part of the authority had prompted the petitioner to file this petition for seeking relief through issuance of Writ of Mandamus. As the petitioner has made out a case for invoking the extraordinary powers of this Court under

¶53

4/7

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶55

WP(MD) No.11315 of 2024

¶56

Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the respondents are required to be given with a direction to consider the representation of the petitioner within a specified time frame.

¶57

7 . In the light of the above observations, the Writ

¶58

Petition stands disposed of with a direction to the respondents herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 02.05.2024 on merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the claim of the petitioner and it is open to the respondents to consider the same on its own merits. No costs.

¶59

22.05.2024 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No RM

¶60

5/7

¶61

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶62

WP(MD) No.11315 of 2024

¶63

¶64

1.The Inspector of Police CCD – III, Virudhunagar.

¶65

6/7

¶66

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶67

WP(MD) No.11315 of 2024

¶68

R.N.MANJULA, J.

¶69

¶70

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.11315 of 2024

¶71

22.05.2024

¶72

7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Junaid Ahmed v. Reserve bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Junaid Ahmed v. Reserve bank of India

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

Vairamuthu.K Vs The Director

Arul Jayaprakash .L Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

C.Aruldass Naves Vs The Director of Elementary Education

Kannan.R Vs The State of Tamilnadu

K.Shanmugam Vs The Managing Director

M.Veerachamy Vs The District Collector