Disposed

Mohammed Jahangir v. The State Bank of India

Telangana HC11 Aug 2023WP/19945/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, an 84-year-old pensioner, challenged the freezing of his bank account by the State Bank of India upon police instructions without notice, violating natural justice and Article 21, and sought an order to unfreeze it.

What did the court decide?

Respondent-bank directed to consider petitioner's representation dated 07.07.2023 and pass appropriate orders within two weeks.

Mohammed Jahangir Vs The State Bank of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

13252 |

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 19945 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

lvlohammed Jahangir, S/o. Late Mohammed Abdullah Khan, aged about⁸⁴ years, Pensioner, R/o. H No. 8-3-2281776/4, Rahmatnagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad 500 045.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State Bank of lndia, Rep. by The Chief Bank Manager,^S.R.Nagar Branch, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Bank Manager, State Bank of lndia, S.R.Nagar^{Branch, Hyderabad}

¶13

3 The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Div.-B, CCS,^{DD, Hyderabad.}

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 ol lhe Constitution of lndia^{praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^filed therewith, the^{High Court may be} pleased to issue an appropriate Writ more^particularly oneⁱⁿ the^{natureof writ of} Mandamus declaring the action of the^{1st respondentherein in freezingtheBank} Account of the Petitioner herein Vide^S.B.l. .Account^{No. 52087974023of} S.R.Nagar Branch lying in the bank^of the^{1st respondentherein uponthe} instructions of the 3rd respondent, which^{is orally informed to the petitioner by the} 2nd respondent, without any notice to^{this petitioner whereunder the pension} amount of the^petitioner is deposited,^{inspite of the representation made by the} petitioner daled 07-07-2023 as illegal, arbitrary, opposed to^{the established} principles of law, in violation of the principles of natural^{justice, further in violation} of Fundamental Rights as^{guaranteedunderArticle21 of the Cpnstitution of lndia} and consequently direct the respondents^{hereinto unfreezethe accountof the} petitioner.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 202ii

¶17

Petition und€ S;ectron 151 CPC praying that in the c rtLtmsrances stated in the affidavrt filed irr ul)port of the petition. the High Corrrt rnit/ he pleased to direct the 1st respondent l :rein to unfreeze the bank account of the petrtioner vide S.B.l. Account No. 5208 )14O23 of S.R.Nagar Branch i.e. the^.sr respondent bank pending disposal of 10 presenl writ petrtion.

¶18

Counsel for the Pet :ioner: SMT. K.PALLAVI Counsel for the Res lx)ndent Nos.1 & 2: M/s. pEARL LAW /\t;-c,OCIATES Counsel for the Re: rtondent No.3: Gp FOR HOME

¶19

The Court made th€ fcllowing: ORDER

¶20

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.19945 oF 2023

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent No.3.

¶23

The petitioner approached the Court seeking the prayer as follows:

¶24

"to issue an appropriate Writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent herein in freezing the Bank Account of the Petitioner herein Vide S.B.I Account No.52087974023 of S.R.Nagar Branch lying in the bank of the 1st respondent herein upon the instructions of the 3rd respondent which is orally informed to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent without any notice to this petitioner whereunder the pension amount of the petitioner is deposited inspite of the representation made by the petitioner dated 07.07.2023 as illegal arbitrary opposed to the established principles of law in violation of the principles of natural justice further in viola.tion of Fundamental Rights as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents herein to unfreeze the account of

¶25

:--

¶26

the p.:itioner and pass such other order or orrlers as thi Hon'ble Court deems fit and propt:r in the circun :;tances of the case in the intererst o'iusti(.e."

¶27

In pu suance to the directions of this Crrurt dated 26.07.2023 tl-e learned counsel for the petitior)er tcok out personal no c,: on the respondent Nos.1 and 2 t)y registered post ackno, edgment due and filed proof of s€r'/i,:e into the registry and lc that effect the endorsement daterc 02.()8.2023 was also rer lrded vide USR No.71187 (memo). I1,.;pit3 of the service of ol.ice, there is no representation or br:half of respondent ,os.1 and 2.

¶28

The lir ited grievance the petitioner seeks ir the present writ petition is a direction to the respondent-bark i.e., State Bank of Ind r, S.R.Nagar Branch, Hyderabad, tc) cc)nsder the representati n of the petitioner dated 07.0'7.20.23 se<:king to unfreeze th petitioner's SBI account No.52087,)74 023 of S.R.Nagar B anch.

¶29

The sp 3cific case of the petitioner is that withr:ut issuing notice to th( petitioner, SBI Account No.52087974,12:i of the petitioner ha I been freezed by the 1't respondent herein upon the instructi ns of the 3'd respondent, which had bee I orally

¶30

¶31

informed to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent and the petitioner is a senior citizen aged 84 years and not in a position to even secure his pension. A detailed representation dated 07.07.2023 had been addressed to the respondentbank, however, no action has been initiated on the said respondent as on date.

¶32

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 07.07.2023 and pass appropriate orders in accordance to law, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, duly communicating the decision to the petitioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶33

¶34

Miscellaneous petitions, if any,. pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶35

,TRUE COPY//

¶36

SD/-A.V.S. PRASAD ASSISTAN REGISTRAR I sEcfloN dFrtcen

¶37

To 1 The Chief Bank^{Manager, State Bank of lndia, S.R.Nagar Bralcfr, Hyderabad} 2 ii-i" alni M;;;di, Siate^{Bankof lndia,s.RNas^elB11ngl' Hvderabad'} 3 ine Aisiitant CSmmissioner^{of Police, Div.-B, cCS' DD,HyQerabad'} 4 One CC to SMT.^{K PALLAVIAdvocate} IOPUCI E On" CC to M/s.^{PEARL LAW ASSOCIATES,Advocate} [qPUCl tl iwo CCsto GP^{FOR HOME,High Court for the State of Telangana,at} Hyderabad. [OUT] 7 Two CD Copies PSK. LS

HIGH COIJR-

DATED:1 1lll1tii023

ORDER

WP.No.1994( cfi 2023

/
I ( (l t'
J ? I IUE 208
-. ..1!
-t,:'/'

¶43

DISPOSING⁽ F'THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT C( STS.

¶44

,,b
ry\4"
./)

Mohammed Jahangir v. The State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Jahangir v. The State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vankuppala Narsimha Vs Osmania University

Potula Mallesh Vs Uniion of India

Eddrakanti Arvind Vs Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd., of Telangana

Namireddy Karunakar Reddy Vs The Ministry of External Affairs

M. Sunita Sunita Jain Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana State Ltd.

Naseem Begum Vs Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd.