Disposed

Elishala Somaiah v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Sept 2024WP/2687/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Agriculturist challenged freezing of his savings bank account by revenue authorities and bank without enquiry or criminal case. The court held the action violated Articles 21 and 300-A absent traceable power, and directed the bank to permit operation of the account if no restraint communication exists.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to make representation to respondents 4 and 5; directed to allow him to operate account No.73040063970 in accordance with law; no costs.

Elishala Somaiah Vs The State of Telangana — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WR|T PETITION NO: 2687 OF 2o20

¶7

Between:

¶8

Elishala Somaiah, S/o Mallaiah Aged abotut 46 Yrs, Occ. Agriculture R/o Vanthadpala Village, Narsimhulapet Mandal, Mahabubbad District Telangana State

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana State

¶12

The District Collector, Itilahabubbad District Mahabubabad 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thorrur Division, Thorrur N/ahabubbad District

¶13

Telangana Gramina Vikas Bank (TSGVB), (Formerly known as (APGVB) Danthalapalli Branch,Rep by its Manager Danthalapaili Village and Mandal, Nilahabubabad District

¶14

5, TheRegional lvlanager, Telangana Gramina Vikas Bank (TSGVB) ABK Mail, 99flqor^{OldBus Depot Road, Ramnagar, Hanamkonda, WarangalDsitrict-} 506001 ...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Cou( may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 3 to 5 without having any right to hold my account without permitting me to withdraw amounts from my account No.73040063970 is against the RBI Rules and guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of lndia and consequently direct the respondents 3 to 5 to permit the petitioner to withdraw the amounts which was laid in the account No.73040063970 of 3rd respondent bank

¶16

¶17

IA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶18

Petition under section i5l cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct to the respondents 3 to 5 to permit the petitioner to withdraw the amounts which was laid in the account No.73040063970 of 3rd respondent bank, pending dispoial of the writ petition

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. B. SUBASH

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Gp FOR HOME

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2&3: AGp FOR REVENUE

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4&5: Smt. V. UMA DEVI, SC The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. V. BIIASKAR REDDY

¶25

WRIT PETITION NO.2687 of 2O2O

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent Nos.3 to 5 in freezing the account of the^petitioner bearing No.73O4OO6397O without conducting any enquiry^as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and violation of Articles 14, 21 arrd 30O-A of the Constitution of India and for other appropriate reliefs.

¶28

Heard leamed counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Smt. V. Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5.

¶29

The case of the petitioner is that he is al account holder uide SB Account No.73040O6397O in respondent No.4-bank. It is stated that the said account was opened for the^purposeof agricultural operations and allied transactions. It is also stated that as on the date. of {iling of the writ^petition, an^{amount of} Rs.4,63,982.92/- is lying to the credit account of the^petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that without conducting^any enquiry or without registration of any criminal^{case,acting on} the instructions issued by respondent^{No.3, respondentNos.4}

¶30

¶31

¶32

CVBR, J wp-26a7 _2020

¶33

and 5 have freezed the account of the petitioner and not allowing the petitioner to operate the said account.

¶34

This Writ Petition is pending on the file of this Court since last four years. The respondents have not filed any counter aJlidavit opposing the writ petition.

¶35

l,earned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that no enquiry, as such, has been conducted for attaching account of the petitioner nor any criminal case is pending to freeze tlre account of the petitioner. It is further contended that respondent Nos.4 and 5, acting on the oral instructions alleged to have been given by respondent Nos.2 ald 3, are not allowing the petitioner to operate the account and withdraw the amount stands to the credit of the petitioner account. Learned counsel also states that under Section LO2 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), any police officer may seize arry property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under certain circumstances which create suspicion of the Commission of any offence. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that under sub-section 3 of Section 1O2, every police officer acting under sub-section (1) shal forthwith report the seizure to the

CV8R, I Wp ?647 2O2O

I I

I I

Magistrate having^jurisdiction and where the^property seized is such that it cannot be conveniently transported to the Court, or where there is difficulty in securing^proper accommodation^for the custody of such property, or where the continue retention^of the property in police custody may not be considered^necessary for the purpose of investigation- It is stated that admittedlyⁱⁿ the present case, no such report has been^placed by the concerned police officer nor any^permission being^grantedby the Magistrate exercising power under Section^1O2Cr.P.C. There is no dispute that bank account ofthe^{petitioneror any of} his relation constitutes a property within the meaning of Section 102 Cr.P.C. and the concerned Police offrcers in^{course of} investigation can seize operation of the said account if such assets have direct link with commission of offence.

¶41

The respondents have not placed any report stating that the account of the petitioner is required for the investigationⁱⁿ any criminal case nor the said account has^{beenattached by} any of the enactment which confers^power on the^concerned authorities. In the absence of the^{power being traceable to} respondent Nos.2 and 3, the action of^{respondent Nos.2 and 3} seizing the account of the petitioner, attaching the^{account of} the petitioner without following the^{procedure and not allowing}

¶42

¶43

CVBR,^J Wp^26A7 -2O2O

¶44

the^{petitioner to operate the account' amountsto violation of} under^{Articles21 and} the rights^{guaranteedto the petitioner} 300-A^{of the Constitutionof India'}

¶45

Without^{expressingany opinion on the merits of the case} andthecomplaintsbeingreceivedbyrespondentNos.4and5, thisCourtisoftheopinionthattheendsofjusticewouldbe met, if^{the petitioneris permittedto make a representation} before^{respondentNos'4 and 5 for allowinghim to operate his} account^{and in the absenceof any communicationreceived by} respondent^{Nos'4and 5 either from respondent Nos'2and 3 or} from competent^{Court restrainingthe petitionerto operate the} account,^{the respondents are directed to allovv the petitioner to} operate^{thebank account} bearing^{No.7304006397O} 1n accordance^{with law'}

¶46

8 With the^{aboveobservations' the Writ Petition is disposed}

¶47

of There^{shall be no orderas to costs} Asa sequel^{thereto,miscellaneouspetitions' ifany'} pending sha1l^{stand closed'} S EKHAR

¶48

SD/.^N.CHANDRA S EKHAR^RAO ASSISTAN REGISTRAR //TRUE^COPY//

¶49

SECTION^OFFICER

¶50

to'',. an" Principal Secretary, Home Department' Secretariat' Hyderabad' Telanqana^State z iili'oYJi"'""t"Ciirector,^{M ahabubbad District Ma hahubabad} 3. The Revenue^{oivisioia'ib#illl"irioT*ioiuision' ThorrurMahabubbad} District

¶51

¶52

4.TheManager,TelanganaGraminaVikasBank.(-TSGVB),(Formerlyknownas' ieFCVAfdintnatapitti Branch, Danthalapalli Village and Mandal, Ivlahabubabad District

¶53

S. The Reoional Manaqer,^{Telangana Gramina Vikas Bank(T99VB) AFI} ffgll' 3rd Flodr, Old^{Bus Depot Road, Ramnagar, Hanamkonda, Warangalusltncl-} 506001

¶54

One CC to SRl.^{B. SUBASH' Advocate} [OPUC] -

¶55

7: iwo Cciio ep^{FOR HOME} 'High^{Couh for the State of Telangana at} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶56

Hyderabad [OUT]

¶57

a. f\i,o-CCi io^'GP FOR^{REVENUEHighCourt for the State of Telangana' at} Hvderabad [OUTI

¶58

Oire CC to Ms.^{V. UMA DEVI, SC} [OPUC]

¶59

'10.Two CD Copies

¶60

BM GJP

( (

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:04/0912024

ORDER

WP.No.2687 ot 2020

E o
A1
F I(
$t , I
F \\ ,D
rt I
2o
H + De5?

¶69

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WTHOUT COSTS

¶70

t+ W

¶71

t1 ,l*'

Elishala Somaiah v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Elishala Somaiah v. The State of Telangana

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

Indian Overseas Bank Vs Union of India

Narahari Satyaprakash Reddy Vs The Superintendent of Engineer

Chintalagatu Manikyamma Vs The Union of India

Golusula Venkatswami Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Impact Metals Ltd. Vs Employees Provident Fund Organization

Koppulu Sadanandam Vs The State of Telangana