SHAIKH RAIS AHEMED Vs. SPECIAL RECOVERY OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this Petition under Article 226 r/w Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief :-

(2.) In brief, it is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order passed by the respondent no.1 directing the respondent no.6 to freeze the loan account of the petitioner is not sustainable in law. It is submitted that pursuant to the recovery certificate issued against the respondent nos.2 and 3, the respondent no.1 ought to have made an attempt to recover the said amount from the principal borrowers i.e. respondent nos.2 and 3 by attachment of their personal properties and secured assets. Instead that the respondent no.1 has directed the respondent no.6 to freeze the account of the petitioner-the guaraontor. Before passing the order of freezing of account, the respondent no.1 has not given opportunity of hearing to petitioner. Account with the respondent no.6 is a salary account of the petitioner. Because of the impugned order the petitioner is put to starvation. The order passed is against the law. Because of freezing of account the petitioner is unable to withdraw any amount from his bank account to maintain himself and his family. He made representation to the respondent no.1 on 25.06.2020. However, the respondent no.1 has not decided said representation. It is submitted that the action on the part of the respondent no.1 not only arbitrary but contrary to law. The respondent no.1 holds no power to freeze the bank account of any person.

(3.) Pursuant to the directions given vide order dated 07.08.2020, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 on instructions from respondent no.1 made statement that the respondent no.1 has no objection to allow the petitioner to withdraw the amount to the extent of 50% of the salary deposited in each month in his salary account with the respondent no.6 to maintain himself and his family.