Dismissed

Kommana Tejaswi v. Union of India

Telangana HC21 Oct 2024WP/29042/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging non-unfreezing of a bank account by State Bank of India manager despite an investigating officer's letter. Court directed the branch manager to unfreeze the account within five days per the police letter.

What did the court decide?

Directed 7th Respondent (Branch Manager, SBI) to unfreeze petitioner's account within five days of receipt of the letter dated 21.08.2024 from CI, Chunchupalli Circle.

Kommana Tejaswi Vs Union of India — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³¹⁸³ ]

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, IHE TWENry FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 29042 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kommana Tejaswi, S/o Purushottam Age 32 years, Occ Central Government Employee R/o H. no. Q. NO 4092, Type- 4, ODF Estate, Eddumailaram, Sanga Reddy DISTRICT

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Union of lndia, Represented by Principal Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs Central secretariat at New Delhi

¶12

National Cyber Crime Report Portal, Represented by Principal Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs Central secretariat at New Delhi

¶13

State of Telangana, Represented by its Principle Secretary Home Department, Secretariat building At Hyderabad, Telangana

¶14

4- Telangana State Cyber Security bureau, Represented by its Director 2 and 3rd Floor, Tower B, Command control Centre, Bhavani Nagar, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana

¶15

lnspector of Police, Chunchupalli Police station Chunchupalli, Badradri Kothagudem District

¶16

State bank of lndia, Represented by its Chairman Jainam, Elysium Head Office, Jainam Elisium Sadan wadi, Bhandup West, Mumnai, Maharastra.

¶17

Branch Manager, State bank of lndia Eddumailaram Branch, Eddumailaram, sangareddy District

¶18

...RES'.NDENT'

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary and violation of Principals of natural Justice and Violation of Article 21 of the lndian Constitution for not giving clarification and not unfreezing of the petitioners SBI account no 20't80266306, IFSC S81N0020537 with reference to the acknowledgement number 33705240025163 and FIR 7012024 on the file of the Chunchupalli Police Station Badradri Kothagudem District, further if any particular direction was given by any of the respondent to the banks for not to unfreeze by

¶20

stating that if any mail or communication^{received other than T4C or Courtorder,} which come to the knowledge of this^{Hon'ble courtduring the pendency of present} writ petition, that needs to^{declaredillegal and Violationof law, su.bsequently} declare that, investigation officer^{directionis the competentand can be unfreeze} the account upon his satisfaction,^{further direct the 7th respondent to defreeze the} petitioner account.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶22

Petition under section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High court maybe pleased to direct} the 7th respondent to^{defreeze the sBl account no 20180266306,IFSC} s81N0020537, with reference^{to the acknowledgementnumber 337 05240025163} and FIR 7Ot2O24 on the file of^{the chunchupalli Police station Badradri} Kothagudem District during^{the pendency of the present Petition.}

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI^{MANDALANAGENDRABABU} Counsel forthe Respondent^{Nos.1 & 2: SRIGADI PRAVEENKUMAR, Dy'} SOLICITOR GEN. OF INDIA Counsel forthe Respondent^{Nos.3 TO 5: GP} FOR^HOME Counsel forthe Respondent^{Nos.6 & 7:} -

¶24

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶25

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{B. VTJAYSEN REDDY}

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.29042 OF 2024

¶28

ORDER: (ORAL)

¶29

This writ petition is filed by the^petitioner seeking^{to declare} the action of respondent No.7 - Branch^{Manager, State Bank of} India, Eddulamailaram branch, in not freezing^{the bank accountof} the petitioner bearing No.20180266306^{(IFSCSBIN0020537)} despite letter dated 21.08.2024 in^{C.No.70lCrlCl-CCPLl2O24} addressed by the Circle lnspector of^{Police, Chunchupalli Circle,} Bhadradri Kothagudem District,^{as being illegal and arbitrary.}

¶30

Heard leamed counsel for the^{petitioner and leamed} Assistant Govemment Pleader for^Home.

¶31

Leamed counsel for the petitioner^{submittedthat a case in} Crime No.70 of 2024^{was registeredwith ChunchupalliPolice} Station for the offences under Sections^{420 of IPCand Section 66-} D of the Information Technology^{Act, 2000 on the complaint} lodged by one Mr. Vankudoth^{Veerannaagainstunknownpersons.} During the course of investigation,^{bank account of the petitioner} bearing No.20180266306 flFSC SBIN0020537)^maintainedby

¶32

¶33

respondent No.7 was fleezed. After conducting enquiry, the lnvestigating Officer addressed letter dated 21.0g.2024 in C.No.70ICrICI-CCPL/2024 to respondenr No.7 to de_freeze the bank account of the petitioner. Grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.7 having received letter of the Investigating Officer did not take any action to de-freeze petitioner,s bank account.

¶34

Leamed Assistant Govemment pleader for Home submitted

¶35

that appropriate direction may be issued to respondent No.7 for de_ freezing petitioner's bank account.

¶36

In view of the above, considering that Investigating Officer has requested respondent No.7 to de-freeze the petitioner,s bank account No.20180266306 (IFSC S8IN0020537) vide letter dated 21.08.2024, this writ petition is disposed of, direcring respondent No.7 - Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Eddulamailaram branch, to forthwith acr upon the letter dated, 21.0g.2024 in C.No.70lCrlCI-CCVL|2\Z4 addressed by the Circle Inspector of Police, Chunchupalli Circle, for de_freezing petitioner,s bank account within a period offive (5) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

///

ir-/

As a sequel thereto,^{miscellaneous applications' if any'}

¶42

pending in the^{writ petition stand closed.}

¶43

SD/-A.^{V.S. PRA} AR/ ASSISTANT^REGIS

¶44

ITTRUE^COPY" SECTION FICER

¶45

Affairs^Ce ntral

¶46

Affairs^Ce

¶47

To 1. The Pri nclpal Sec retary, Unionbf^{lndia' Ministry of Home} rtal,^{Ministry of} secreta^{riatat NewDelhi} National^CYbe r Crime^{RePort Po}

¶48

2.^The PrinciP al Secretary' creta iiat at^New Delhi Home Affai^{rs Centralse} State of Telang ana,^{Home DePartment' Secretariat}

¶49

3 The^{PrinctP le leSecretary} and^{3rdFloor, Tower}

¶50

3 The^{PrinctP le le} Hvd^Secretary erabad, Telang^ana and^{3rdFloor, Tower} 4. building TheB,^CO Diiector^{mmand control At} ,Telangan^{Centre, a StateBhavan} Cybe^{r SecuritY i Nagar'} Baniara bureau,2Hills, HYderabad, Telangana ector^{of Police,ChunchuPalli Police Station Chunchupalli' Badradri}

¶51

5.^lnsp ium^{HeadOffice' Jainam} 6. Kotha^Th Elie sium Chairm^{gugem DistrictSad} an, an er, wadi,^StateSta BhanduPbank te bank^of lndia,^o West,f lndia^Jainam' Mumnat'Edduma^E lysilaram Maharastra^Branc h, Eddumailaram' 7.^Bran ch ManagareddY^District t Sang I une^{ENDRABABU, AdvocateoPUCI} IMAN^DALI

¶52

1. One CC^{to SR} LVerU^{KUMAR, Dv- soLICITORGEN.OF INDIA} 9 One^{CC tO SRIGADIPRI} rOPUC] Mr,^{Hish Court for the State of Telangana' at}

¶53

to GP GP^{FOR HOHO}

¶54

rOPUC]

¶55

10 .two^CC S to GP GP^{FOR HOHO} Hyderaba^{o. 1OUr1}

¶56

11.Two CD^CoPtes

¶57

PSK.

-/ t I I

HIGH COURT

(

DATED:2111012024

ORDER

WP.No.29042 o12024

n*,,-'' .
'. (
i r q rrl Zli!

¶67

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT^PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

¶68

tl @4 8- eA

Kommana Tejaswi v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kommana Tejaswi v. Union 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

Mr.Mandadi Raghavendar Reddy Vs M/s. Anish Educational Society (Aes)

Smt. Muthyala Prameela Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Margam Sandhya Rani Vs Smt Pamela Satpathy

Ms. Shalini Sood Awasthi Vs The State of Telangana

M/s Sri Saidurga Constructions Vs Mr. Uppalapati Srihari Rao

Yeluka Lalitha Vs State of Telangana and Another