Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 942 (ALL)

Uday Shanker Shukla v. Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd.

2016-03-15

HULUVADI G.RAMESH, SHAMSHER BAHADUR SINGH

body2016
JUDGMENT By means of this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus directing he respondent bank to maintain the upto date interest of the petitioner's Saving Bank Account No.11106 and allow him to withdraw the balance amount from his account with interest within the stipulated period. 2. It appears that the grievance of the petitioner is that Rs.5,89,794.82p. was found balance amount in the S.B.A/c no.11106 of the petitioner up to 29.3.2012, for which an investigation has been conducted by the Income Tax Department on 29.3.2000 and on the complaint to the Income Tax Department for the period 2000-01, the petitioner was prohibited to operate the account since 31.3.2001. The Income Tax Department recovered the said amount from the petitioner on 27.4.2001, against which the petitioner filed Income Tax Appeals on 31.8.2004 for the assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, for modifying the order of the Income Tax Officer with regard to source of income etc. The Appellate Tribunal restricted the addition to Rs.5000/- for the assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000. 3. It appears that during the period 1999-2000, an additional amount of Rs.21,900/- was assessed, which was reduced to Rs.5000/- by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. It also appears that the matter was taken up by the Income Tax authorities and they have proceeded to recover the excess amount from the bank. On 23.12.2013 the petitioner approached the respondent-bank to allow to operate the account, but the bank informed the petitioner that vigilance department has written to the Bank Manager for taking permission with regard to operation of the account from the U.P. Vigilance Department, Gorakhpur. The petitioner moved a representation on 13.2.2014 to the respondent bank for according permission to allow the operation of the account, but without any result. 4. Heard Sri Bhim Sen Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sujit Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the complaint with regard to the payment of excess amount has already been resolved and there is no impediment in operation of the account for the respondent bank, but the bank without having any authority under law is not releasing the petitioner's balance amount with interest. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the complaint with regard to the payment of excess amount has already been resolved and there is no impediment in operation of the account for the respondent bank, but the bank without having any authority under law is not releasing the petitioner's balance amount with interest. 6. From perusal of the record, it appears that the Appellate Tribunal restricted the addition to Rs.5000/- for the assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 and the petitioner has moved a representation on 13.2.2014 before the respondent bank, which is still pending for disposal. Be that as it may, an enquiry is being initiated by the vigilance officer, the fact of which is not at all made available to the petitioner. 7. In the circumstances, the petitioner is directed to approach the U.P. Vigilance Department, Gorakhpur for conclusion of the enquiry pending before him and thereafter approach the respondent bank, so that the respondent bank could consider the representation of the petitioner for permission to operate the aforesaid saving bank account, as per law and obtain No Objection Certificate from the vigilance authority and thereafter issue the balance amount due to the petitioner. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.