Vikash Kumar v. The Bank Of Baroda

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

(FROM RESIDENTIAL OFFICE VIA VIDEO APPLICATION) Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6192 of 2020 ====================================================== Vikash Kumar Son of Anand Kumar Ojha Resident of Mohalla- Maruti Nagar, Ara, Arrah, P.S.- Ara Nagar, District- Bhojpur. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The Bank of Baroda through Chairman cum M.D., Baroda Bhawan, 5th Floor, R.C. Dutt Road, Alkapuri, Baroda- 390007. 2.

The Chairman Cum M.D., Bank of Baroda, Baroda Bhawan, 5th Floor, R.C. Dutt Road, Alkapuri, Baroda- 390007.

3.

The General Manager, Bank of Baroda, Patna Zone, Anand Vihar, 5th Floor, West Boring Canal Road, Patna- 800001.

4.

The Deputy General Manager, Bank of Baroda, Regional Office, Patna Zone, Anand Vihar, 4th Floor, West Boring Canal Road, Patna- 800001. 5.

The Branch Manager, Branch- Mahavir Tola Arrah (Branch Code- 5259) Bank of Baroda, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.- Ara Nagar, District- Bhojpur, Pin802301. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Om Prakash Singh,Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Vivek Prasad, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 12-06-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the Bank of Baroda.

The petitioner in the present case is seeking a direction to the respondent Bank to activate the login user id and password of the petitioner which according to him were provided by the Bank to work as an authorised business correspondent (Bank Mitra) of the Bank of Baroda but the same has been blocked and reported as dormant.

The limited grievance of the petitioner at this stage is that

Patna High Court CWJC No.6192 of 2020(2) dt.12-06-2020 2/2 despite his representation sent through e-mail as contained in Annexure '4' series, the Bank has not come out with any response. Mr. Vivek Prasad, learned counsel representing the Bank submits that presently he has no instruction on the merit of the case but in the given facts and circumstance, this writ application may be disposed of and the issue raised by the petitioner in his e-mail will be responded on behalf of respondent Bank.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the Bank, taking note of the limited grievance of the petitioner and the stand taken on behalf of the Bank, instead of keeping this writ application pending it is being disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 5 and in case any other respondent who is the competent authority then the said authority as well to consider the e-mail sent by the petitioner as contained in Annexure '4' series and respond to him with the decision at the end of the Bank within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

This writ application is disposed of accordingly. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) SUSHMA2/Arvind U Note: The ordersheet duly signed has been attached with the record. However, in view of the present arrangements, during Pandemic period all concerned shall act on the basis of the copy of the order uploaded on the High Court website under the heading 'Judicial Orders Passed During The Pandemic Period'.