Baljinder Kaur Lehra v. Reserv Bank Of India Through Its Authorized Officer And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP-16350-2026 Date of Decision: 29.05.2026 BALJINDER KAUR LEHRA

...Petitioner

Vs.

RESERV BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS

...Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. Ashish Pal Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4 *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1.

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India are seeking setting aside of order dated 03.04.2026 whereby respondent No.2-Ombudsman, RBI Banking has closed her complaint under Clause 16(1)(a) and 10(2)(b)(ii) of Reserve Bank Integrated Ombudsman Scheme, 2021 (for short '2021 Scheme'). She is further seeking direction to respondents to allow her to operate Bank Account No.16351 now 55058699252 & Locker No.17 maintained with respondent No.3-State Bank of India and Account No.026610000004221 maintained with respondent No.4-Punjab &Sind Bank.

2.

This is second round of litigation. The petitioner is resident of U.S.A. along with her mother-in-law Harbans Kaur. Her husband has passed away. The petitioner claims that her husband and mother-in-law DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.05.29 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CWP-16350-2026 -2had locker No. 17 in the respondent No.3-Bank which could be operated by either of them or survivor. She approached this Court by way of CWP No.8899 of 2026 which was disposed of vide order dated 24.03.2026 directing the Ombudsman to look into the matter and pass an appropriate order on her representation. The Ombudsman vide order dated 03.04.2026 has closed her complaint under Clause 16(1)(a) and 10(2)(b)(ii) of 2021 Scheme observing that a Civil Suit No.829 of 2025 is pending before Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Malerkotla. 3.

Learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 submits that locker was in the name of petitioner's mother and father-in-law. Her husband was never holder of locker in question. As her husband was not holder of the locker, there is no question to permit her even to operate locker leaving aside permission to withdraw any item. 4.

Faced with this learned counsel for petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to avail alternative remedy as permissible by law.

5.

Dismissed as withdrawn with aforesaid liberty. 6.

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE May 29, 2026 Deepak DPA Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.05.29 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment