IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOs.1672-73 OF 2019 & WRIT PETITION NO.2119 OF 2019 (GM-KSR) BETWEEN:
1. THE TOWN MAHILA SAMAJA (R) REP BY THE PRESIDENT SMT. NALINI D’SA W/O SRI FRANCIS D’SA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/OFF AT TOWN HALL ROAD CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101.
2. SMT. NALINI D’SA W/O SRI FRANCIS D’SA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS THE PRESIDENT TOWN MAHILA SAMAJA (R) R/AT SHUBANGAN 1ST CROSS CHRISTIAN COLONY CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101.
3. SMT. KAVITHA GOPAL W/O SRI G S GOPAL AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS TREASURER TOWN MAHILA SAMAJA (R) R/AT. SHUBANGAN 1ST CROSS CHRISTIAN COLONY CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101.
(By Mr. ARUNA SHYAM, ADV.) … PETITIONERS AND:
1. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND THE DISTRICT REGISTAR CHICKMAGALURU DISTRICT CHICKAMAGALURU-577101.
2. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER HOSAMANE EXTENSION CHICKAMAGALURU-577101.
3. SMT. NETHRAVATHI W/O SRI VENKATESH AGED ABOUT MAJOR SECRETARY TOWN MAHILA SAMAJA (R) LAKSHMI VENKATESH NILAYA, LAKSHMI NAGAR CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101.
[vide order dated 17.01.2019 Cause title amended] … RESPONDENTS (By SMT. H.C. KAVITA, LEARNED HCGP FOR R1 SRI. B.C. GURU ADV. FOR R2 SRI. NAGAIAH ADV. FOR R3) - - -
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 31.12.2018 ISSUED BY R-2 BLOCKING OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF PETITIONER THE OPERATION NO.1, VIDE ANNEX-A AND CONSEQUENTLY PERMIT THE PETITIONER NO.2 AND 3 TO OPERATE THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE PETITIONER NO.1 & ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.Aruna Shyam, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Smt.H.C.Kavita, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 Mr.B.C.Guru, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
Mr.Nagaiah, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
2. The writ petitions are admitted for hearing.
With consent of the parties, the same are heard finally.
3. In these petitions, the petitioners inter alia has prayed for the following reliefs:
(a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction quashing the endorsement bearing No.MISC/2018-19/44 DATED 31.12.2018 issued by the respondent No.2 blocking the operation of the bank Accounts of the petitioner No.1 which is produced at Annexure-A and consequently permit the petitioner No.2 and 3 to operate the Bank Accounts of the petitioner No.1.
(b) Issue a writ or order or direction directing the respondent No.2 to consider the representation of the petitioners and to take appropriate action in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the bye- law of he Samaja and (c) Grant such other and further reliefs as deems fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioners have invited the attention of this Court to Clause 54 of the bye-laws and has submitted that the cheques have to be signed by President and the Treasurer or the person who is empowered by the Managing Committee. It is further submitted that the President and the Treasurer are authorized to operate the account. However, the respondent No.2-Bank by a communication dated 31.12.2018 has informed the petitioners that the President and the Secretary should issue unanimous instructions for operation of the account and the Banking operations have been seized.
5. From the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners prima facie it appears to be a case of deficiency in services. Therefore, the petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy to approach the Banking Ombudsman against respondent No.2 Bank. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he be granted the liberty to approach the Banking Ombudsman along with an application seeking the relief for directing ad-interim arrangement for operation of the account of the Bank and the Banking Ombudsman be directed to decide the interim application as well as the complaint, which may be filed by the petitioners expeditiously in accordance with law and in a time bound manner. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have not opposed the aforesaid prayer.
6. In view of the submissions made and in the facts of the case, the writ petitions are disposed of with a liberty that in case the petitioners file a complaint against respondent No.2-Bank along with an application seeking ad-interim arrangement, the Banking Ombudsman shall decide the same by a speaking order within a period of three days from the date of receipt of such an application, after hearing the parties and thereafter proceed to decide the complaint filed by the petitioners by a speaking order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the complaint.
Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS