JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Bank. 2. The petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondent-Bank for payment of monthly pension amount which is granted by the Railway authority. 3. The short facts of this case are that an amount of Rs. 2,99,973/-, being D.C.R. Gratuity amount of Rs. 1,31,868/- and commutation of pension of Rs. 1,68,105/-, was deposited in Savings Account No. 17760 of the petitioner maintained in the Central Bank of India, Dighwara Branch on 24.9.2004. Subsequently the Bank found that the said amount had earlier been received by the petitioner from the Railways directly and in the said circumstances by letter dated 23.5.2008 the Bank requested the petitioner to deposit the said amount of Rs. 2,99,973/- in one lump sum. Despite the passage of 11 months the petitioner has not deposited the amount and on the other hand he has come to this Court seeking a relief that he may be permitted to operate his account which the Bank is not permitting him to do. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired as Head Constable, Security and being a poor illiterate person, does not understand all these matters and therefore he should not be penalized for the fault of the Bank. It is submitted that the Bank should fix an instalment of Rs. 2,000/- per month and inform the petitioner so that the amount may be deposited in course of time. 5. Learned counsel for the Bank, on the other hand, states that it is one of the terms and conditions at the time of opening of the Bank account that the customer undertakes to return any amount wrongly deposited in his Bank account. Even on the principle of contract it is contended that if any amount paid by mistake, it is the obligation of the party who has received the excess amount to return the same. It is submitted that the petitioners offer to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month would not even cover the interest on the said amount which shows his dishonesty in the matter. 6. This Court is unable to accept the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being a poor and illiterate person does not understand that an excess amount had been deposited in his account and he withdrew the entire amount within a short period of time. 6. This Court is unable to accept the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being a poor and illiterate person does not understand that an excess amount had been deposited in his account and he withdrew the entire amount within a short period of time. It is evident that the petitioner being a retired Head Constable would easily understand that an excess amount of Rs. 2,99,973/- had been deposited in his account. Such plea can only be raised by a person who is dishonest in the extreme and not by a reasonably honest person. The petitioner having already received his payment of D.C.R. Gratuity and commutation amount from the Railways would have been immediately put to notice on the existence of the huge amount in his Bank account and had he been an honest person then instead of straightaway utilizing the same he would have made necessary enquiries from the Bank and returned the same. That having not been done, he has the audacity to come to this Court invoking its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for obtaining a dishonest relief. The writ jurisdiction of this Court is meant to assist an honest citizen and not a dishonest person like the petitioner. 7. In the above circumstances, no case is made out for interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed.