Ramrati Devi v. The Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18375 of 2017 ====================================================== Ramrati Devi Wife of Ram Pravesh Sharma, Resident of Village-Budhasi, P.s.-Sidhwalia, District-Gopalganj.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The General Manager, State Bank of India 2.

Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Sidhwalia Branch, District-Gopalganj. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Prem Sheela Pandey For the Respondent/s :

Mrs.Namrata Mishra, Sr. Advocate :

Mr. Alok Kumar Agarwal, CGC :

Mr. Akash Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 19-06-2025

1. The Writ petition is filed to direct the respondents for payment of Rs. 66,698/- deposited by the husband of the petitioner, in State Bank of India, Branch Sidhwalia, vide receipt no. 159557 Account No. 30888532690. Further, to direct the respondent for payment of interest, from the date of maturity i.e. 10.09.2014 till the date of realization.

2/4

2. Heard the Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Learned Senior counsel, Ms. Namrata Mishra, for the State Bank of India and the counsel representing Union Bank of India.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner's husband has made a fixed deposit of Rs.46,000/-, in State Bank of India, Sidhwalia Branch, District Gopalganj for a period of 11.09.2009 to 10.09.2014 vide receipt no. 159557, in Account No. 30888532690. Before the maturity of the fixed deposit, the husband of the petitioner died on 10.03.2014. On 08.06.2016 the petitioner contacted the officials of State Bank of India, Sidhwalia Branch for payment of the amount.

4. It is specific contention in the Writ petition that the Branch Manager misbehaved and threatened the petitioner, for which the petitioner was constrained to inform the SHO, Sidhwalia, on

3/4 08.06.2016 and on the same day an application was also made to the Branch Manager, for payment of amount and interest which is in the Fixed Deposit of the petitioner's husband. Inspite of it, the payment was not made.

5. On perusal of the contents of Writ petition, it is evident that it is purely a civil dispute between the petitioner and the respondents-Bank. Though Union of India was made as a party, no relief is sought against Union of India.

6. An alternative remedy is available for the petitioner, to receive the amount from the Bank. It is for the petitioner and the respondent-Bank to consider who was the nominee, of the fixed deposit, in order to hand over the said amount. The petitioner is always at liberty to file her succession certificate to prove that she is the only legal heir, to receive the amount of her husband. Inspite of approaching the

4/4 appropriate forum, the Writ petition is filed to direct the respondents authorities to pay the amount to the petitioner. These all are the questions of facts which cannot be decided under Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

7. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority with all relevant documents and pleas.

8. In view of the above discussion, the Writ petition stands dismissed as it is devoid of merits. (G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J) amitkr/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 10.07.2025 Transmission Date N/A