DHARMENDRASINH DOLUBHA ZALA Vs. STATE BANK OF SAURASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. Sandip Bhatt, learned Counsel waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 1. Ms. Harsha Devani, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. At the request of learned Counsels appearing for the parties, the petition is heard today.

(2.) By means of filing this petition under Art. 226 of Constitution, the petitioners have prayed to declare the action of the respondent No. 2 of prohibiting respondent No. 1 Bank to pay any amount to petitioners out of their accounts with Bank, is without jurisdiction, illegal, unjust and arbitrary. The petitioners have further prayed to direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to operate the Bank accounts opened by them with respondent No. 1 Bank.

(3.) The petitioner No. 1 is the father of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. The petitioner No. 1 has opened Home Savings Account with State Bank of Saurashtra, Sadar Bazar Branch, Rajkot. The petitioners have also jointly opened Current Accounts with the said Bank. One Rajendra Jayantilal Mankodi has filed complaint on March 8, 1996 with Pradyuman Nagar Police Station against the petitioners and another for the offences punishable under Secs. 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 511 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner No. 1 had drawn a cheque for an amount of Rs. 11,000/ - on November 8, 1996. However the said cheque was not honoured by the respondent No. 1, as respondent No. 2 has prohibited the Bank to pay any amount to petitioners out of their accounts. This is evident from communication dated November 8, 1996 issued by the respondent No. 1 to the petitioner No. 1 which is produced at Annexure B to the petition. In the petition, the petitioners have claimed that the Police Officer has no power to direct the respondent No. 1 to stop payment of the cheque drawn on the respondent No. 1, nor the respondent No. 1 Bank is justified in not paying the amount mentioned in the cheque to the petitioner on the ground that the Bank has received instructions from the Police Officer not to permit the petitioners to operate the Bank account. Under the circumstances, the petitioners have filed present petition and claimed reliefs to which reference is made earlier.