T.Kalaivani v. the Operation of Banking Ombudsmen Officer

Madras HC27 Jan 2025WP/1515/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

SBI locker; deceased holder C. Loganathan; wife/legal heir T. Kalaivani; mother-in-law C. Sathyakala co-hirer permitted to operate locker; petitioner treated as third party; representation dated 18.12.2024 to RBI Banking Ombudsman and SBI officials unanswered; bank reply letter RM3/Z2/266/2024-25 dated 23.01.2025; mandamus under Article 226 refused, petitioner directed to alternative remedy; writ petition disposed, no costs; W.P.No.1515 of 2025, decided 27.01.2025.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; writ petition disposed of with the observation that the petitioner may pursue any alternative remedy available to her; no order as to costs. ¶Para 6

T.Kalaivani Vs the Operation of Banking Ombudsmen… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; writ petition disposed of with the observation that the petitioner may pursue any alternative remedy available to her; no order as to costs.

¶Para 6

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing respondents 1 to 3 to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 18.12.2024 seeking action against the 4th respondent (Manager, State Bank of India, Chrompet). +1 more

¶ORDER - introductory para

Court's answer

The respondents have already considered the petitioner's representation and, vide order dated 23.01.2025, informed that they acted as per the rules in permitting the petitioner's mother-in-law (C. Sathyakala), one of the locker hirers, to operate the bank locker, the petitioner being regarded as a third party.

¶Para 5

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is directed to find any alternative remedy available to her to ventilate her grievance.

¶Para 5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (V. Bhavani Subbaroyan, J.), W.P.No.1515 of 2025, disposed of on 27.01.2025: T. Kalaivani, wife and first-class legal heir of deceased C. Loganathan, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 (Banking Ombudsmen Officer, RBI; SBI Administrative Officer; SBI Regional Manager) to dispose of her representation dated 18.12.2024 seeking action against the 4th respondent, Manager, State Bank of India, Chrompet Branch, for permitting the petitioner's mother-in-law to operate the deceased's bank locker. Respondents 2 to 4 produced letter RM3/Z2/266/2024-25 dated 23.01.2025 stating that the mother-in-law, C. Sathyakala, is one of the locker hirers with the deceased and was accordingly permitted access, the petitioner being a third party to the locker. Holding that the respondents had already considered the representation and acted as per the rules, the Court directed the petitioner to find any alternative remedy available to ventilate her grievance and disposed of the writ petition with no order as to costs.

¶1

W.P.No.1515 of 202

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 27.01.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

¶6

W.P.No.1515 of 2025

T. Kalaivani

...Petitioner

The Operation of Banking Ombudsmen Officer, Reserve Bank of India, Reserve Bank of India Fort Glacis, Chennai – 600 001.

¶11

The SBI Administrate Officer, SBI Administrative Office Chennai Zone-1 No.231 NSC Bose Road, Parrys Corner, Chennai – 600 001.

¶12

The Regional Manager, State Bank of India Regional Office, No.86, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001.

¶13

A. SriLalitha Manager of State Bank of India, State Bank of India Chrompet Branch, Chrompet, Chennai

¶14

...Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to dispose of petitioner's representation dated 18.12.2024 made for to take

¶16

1/6

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.No.1515 of 202

¶19

appropriate action against the 4^th Respondent Manager, State Bank of India, Chrompet, Chennai and within a time frame as may be fixed by this Honourable Court and pass orders.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.P. Arumugam For Respondents : Mr.C.Mohan, 2,3 & 4 Ms. A. Rexy Josephine Mary for M/s . King and Partridge

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing

¶23

the respondents 1 to 3 to dispose of petitioner's representation dated 18.12.2024 made for to take appropriate action against the 4^th Respondent Manager, State Bank of India, Chrompet, Chennai and within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court and pass orders.

¶24

The case of the petitioner is that she is the wife and the first class legal heir of the deceased C.Loganathan. The sum and substance of the case is that the deceased has a locker in the State Bank of India and the same was operated by the mother-in-law of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Bank Manager ought not to have permitted the

¶25

2/6

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.No.1515 of 202

¶28

mother-in-law of the petitioner to operate the Bank Locker. Hence, she has approached the respondents 1 to 3 to take action against the 4^th respondent by way of a representation dated 18.12.2024. However, there was no progress in the said representation till date. Hence, this petition.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it would be suffice if this Court issues a direction to the respondents to consider petitioner's representation and pass orders.

¶30

4.The learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents 2,3

¶31

and 4 produced a letter in RM3/Z2/266/2024-25 dated 23.01.2025 wherein it has been stated that the mother-in-law of the petitioner/C.Sathyakala is one of the locker hirer with the said deceased/C.Loganathan hence they have permitted her to access the locker and the petitioner herein is the third party to the locker.

¶32

In view of the above it is made clear that the Respondents

¶33

have considered the representation of the petitioner and vide order dated

¶34

3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

W.P.No.1515 of 202

¶36

23.01.2025 they have informed that they acted as per the rules and permitted the mother-in-law of the petitioner/C.Sathyakala to operate the bank locker as she is one of the locker hirer and according to them the petitioner is a third party. Hence, the petitioner is directed to find any alternative remedy available to her to ventilate her grievance.

¶37