1 2025:CGHC:14396 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1164 of 2025 Chandrakumari Rajput W/o Late Shri Laxman Singh Rajput Aged About 55 Years R/o House No. 231, Ward No. 18, Jawahar Nagar, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner versus Punjab National Bank Through Its Authorized Officer, Branch Durg, Dhamda Naka, Station Road, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh --- Respondent WPC No. 1366 of 2025 Sourabh Rajput S/o Late Shri Laxman Singh Rajput Aged About 35 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As 36 In Annexurer P /1) R/o House No. 231, Ward No. 18, Jawahar Nagar, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus Punjab National Bank Through Its Authorized Officer, Branch Durg, Dhamda Naka, Station Road, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners in both the writ petitions : Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate For Respondent in both the writ petitions : Mr. Sharad Mishra, Advocate YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.04.09 09:58:15 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 25.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. Anand Shukla, learned counsel for the respective petitioners and Mr. Sharad Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in both the writ petitions. 2. Since the common issue is involved in both the writ petitions, as such, they are clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3. In WPC No.1164/2025, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent Bank to return/release the Gold Ornaments mortgaged by the petitioner in pursuance of the Gold Loan Account no. 165400NH00000037 at the earliest, in the interest of justice. 10.2) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant the compensation with interest to the petitioner against the arbitrary act of the Respondent Bank. 10.3) That, Cost of the petition may also be awarded to the petitioner. 10.4) Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the 3 facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 4. In WPC No.1366/2025, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent Bank to return/release the Gold Ornaments mortgaged by the petitioner in pursuance of the Gold Loan Account no. 165400NH00000037 at the earliest, in the interest of justice. 10.2) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant the compensation with interest to the petitioner against the arbitrary act of the Respondent Bank. 10.3) That, Cost of the petition may also be awarded to the petitioner. 10.4) Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 5. The instant petitions are filed against the mala fide actions of the respondent-Bank, whereby despite of full settlement and closure of the petitioners’ gold loan account with the respondent-Bank, the Bank has unjustifiably and arbitrarily not releasing/returning the gold mortgaged by the petitioners. 4 6. Brief facts for disposal of both the writ petitions are that, the petitioner in WPC No.1164/2025, availed a gold loan facility from the respondent-Bank amounting to Rs.11,30,000/- by mortgaging her own gold, which was sanctioned on 15.05.2024 in favour of the petitioner under Account No.165400NH00000046 and the petitioner in WPC No.1366/2025 and along his late wife Smt. Arpita Rajput, availed a gold loan facility from the respondent- Bank amounting to Rs.9,50,000/-, which was sanctioned on 10.05.2024 in favour of the petitioner under Account No.165400NH00000037. Thereafter, First Information Report was lodged against the petitioners under Sections 304-B and 34 of the IPC, bearing Crime No.238/2024, registered at Police Station Mohan Nagar, District Durg. During the course of the investigation, the petitioners’ house and 11 bank accounts were seized as per the directions of the Police Authorities. Later on, a criminal case was registered, bearing No.RCC/13850/2024 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, wherein the petitioners moved an application under Section 503 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”) (formerly Section 457 of the Cr.P.C.) for release of seized properties, including their house and the bank accounts. However, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. Durg, vide order dated 17.09.2024, rejected the application. Thereafter the peittioners have preferred a revision against the order dated 17.09.2024 before the learned 6th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Durg, 5 bearing Criminal Revision No.270/2024, who vide order dated 25.11.2024, partly allowed the revision and directed the removal of the seal from the house of the petitioners as well as directed for de-freezing of all the accounts and it was further directed that any amount lying in the said account bearing Account No.0796102100000388, one year prior to the incident and six months after the incident shall not be handled by the petitioner in question. 7. In compliance of the order dated 25.11.2024, the Superintendent of Police, Durg, vide letter dated 13.12.2024, issued clear instructions to the respondent-Bank to de-freeze all accounts of the petitioners held with the Bank. Despite such directions, the respondent-Bank has wrongfully withheld the pledged gold. Thereafter, the petitioners made repeated requests before the respondent-Bank and vide letter dated 08.01.2025 requested the respondent-Bank to de-freeze the accounts, enabling them to access financial assets. The petitioners have also raised grievance before the Banking Ombudsman and Circle Head vide its complaint letter dated 08.01.2025, but the said Authorities did not come to rescue the petitioners. 8. It is further case of the petitioners that the petitioners have cleared all outstanding dues in gold loan Account No.165400NH00000046 and gold loan Account No.165400NH00000037, respectively through a one-time settlement on 06.01.2025 and 29.01.2025, 6 respectively and duly discharged financial obligations towards the Bank. In pursuance thereof, the respondent-Bank itself issued a "No Due Certificate" on 29.01.2025 for both the account numbers, certifying the complete settlement of the loan account. Despite the said fact, the respondent-Bank has arbitrarily and illegally withheld the mortgaged gold ornaments up till date. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have cleared all outstanding dues in gold loan Account No.165400NH00000046 and gold loan Account No.165400NH00000037, respectively through a one-time settlement on 06.01.2025 and 29.01.2025, respectively and the respondent-Bank itself issued a "No Due Certificate" on 29.01.2025, despite the said fact, the respondent-Bank has arbitrarily and illegally withheld the mortgaged gold ornaments till date, which is not in accordance with law. He would further submit that there is clear judicial order passed by the learned 6th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Durg vide order dated 25.11.2024, whereby the learned Court ordered to de-freeze the gold loan account of the petitioners and the Superintendent of Police, Durg, vide letter dated 13.12.2024, issued clear instructions to the respondent-Bank to de-freeze all accounts of the petitioners held with the bank, but the respondent-Bank has wrongfully withheld the release of the pledged gold. It has been contended that the petitioners have repeatedly requested before the respondent-Bank to return its Gold ornaments, but all the 7 efforts left in vain and the respondent-Bank is arbitrarily withholding the Gold of the petitioners. It has been further contended that the petitioners have also raised their grievance before the Banking Ombudsman and Circle Head vide its complaint letter dated 08.01.2025, but the said authorities also did not come to rescue the petitioners and the respondent-Bank has taken the untenable stand that there is no clear judicial order directing the return of gold to the petitioners. However, such a stand is wholly misconceived, as there is no legal embargo preventing the release of the pledged assets following the loan's full settlement and the issuance of the No Due Certificate. It has been submitted that the failure to return the pledged gold constitutes a clear violation of the RBI’s Fair Practices Code, which mandates that upon full repayment, banks must return pledged securities without undue delay. It has been further submitted that the RBI's Fair Practices Code provides the mortgaged property shall be returned within 30 days and if the mortgaged property are not returned within said period attributable to Bank then the borrower is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,000/- per day, as such, the arbitrary and unjustified withholding of the pledged gold has caused severe financial distress to the petitioners, depriving them of their rightful property despite compliance with all legal and financial requirements. It has been argued that the petitioners have been unable to access pledged assets, which could have been utilized for urgent 8 financial needs, thereby resulting in unnecessary hardship and the action of the respondent-Bank amounts to an abuse of power, which is causing undue financial and mental hardship to the petitioners. It has been further argued that the petitioners have cleared all dues and entitled to immediate return of the property, the action of the respondent-Bank of withholding pledged gold without any authority of law violates Article 300A of the Constitution of India, of the petitioners. It has been further submitted that there is no allegation regarding the demand of gold in the criminal case against the petitioners and no one either raised any objection on the claim of gold and further, the Gold is the exclusive property of the petitioners, therefore the petitioners are entitled to return of gold ornaments. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Bank fairly submits that the gold which has been withhold with the respondent-Bank would be duly returned to the petitioners within the stipulated time frame. 11. I have heard the rival contentions put-forth on behalf of the parties and perused the material available on record. 12. The respondent- Bank is working under the public domain and engaged in public duty. It is settled preposition of law that Article 226 of the Constitution of India a writ of mandamus can be issued for enforcement of the fundamental rights as well as non- fundamental rights. The words "any person or authority" used in 9 Article 226 of the Constitution of India are, therefore, not to be confined only to statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the State and may cover any other person or body performing public duty. 13. The preposition is very well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and others v. V.R. Rudani and others reported in (1989) 2 SCC 691 wherein it was held in para 20 as follows: “17. There, however, the prerogative writ of mandamus is confined only to public authorities to compel performance of public duty. The 'public authority' for them mean every body which is created by statute and whose powers and duties are defined by statue. So Government departments, local authorities, police authorities, and statutory undertakings and corporations, are all 'public authorities'. But there is no such limitation for our High Courts to issue the writ 'in the nature of mandamus'. Article 226 confers wide powers on the High Courts to issue writs in the nature of prerogative writs. This is a striking departure from the English law. Under Article 226, writs can be issued to "any person or authority". It can be 10 issued "for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights and for any other purpose. 18. Article 226 reads: "226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs (1) Notwithstanding anything in Art. 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction to issue to any person or authority including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including (Writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part II and for any other purpose. XXX XXX XXX " 19. XXX XXX XXX " 19. The scope of this article has been explained by Subba Rao., in Dwarkanath v. Income Tax Officer, [1965] 3 SCR 536 at (SCR pp.540-41): "This article is couched in comprehensive phraseology and it ex-facie confers a wide power on the High Courts to reach injustice wherever it is found. The Constitution 11 designedly used a wide language in describing the nature of the power, the purpose for which and the person or authority against whom it can be exercised. It can issue writs in the nature of prerogative writs as understood in England; but the use of the expression "nature", for the said expression does not equate the writs that can be issued in India with those in England, but only draws an analogy from them. That apart, High Courts can also issue directions, orders or writs other than the prerogative writs. It enables the High Courts to mould the reliefs to meet the peculiar and complicated requirements of this country. Any attempt to equate the scope of the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution with that of the English Courts to issue prerogative writs is to introduce the unnecessary procedural restrictions grown over the years in a comparatively small country like England with a unitary form of Government into a vast country like India functioning under a federal structure. Such a construction defeats the purpose of the article itself." 12 20. The term "authority" used in Article 226, in the context, must receive a liberal meaning unlike the term in Article 12. Article 12 is relevant only for the purpose of enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 32. Article 226 confers power on the High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of the fundamental rights as well as non-fundamental rights. The words "any person or authority" used in Article 226 are, therefore, not to be confined only 10 statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the State. They may cover any other person or body performing public duty. The form of the body concerned is not very much relevant. What is relevant is the nature of the duty imposed on the body. The duty must be judged in the light of positive obligation owed by the person or authority to the affected party. No matter by what means the duty is impoxed, if a positive obligation exists mandamus cannot be denied. 21. In Praga Tools Corporation v. Shri C.A. Imanual & Ors., [1969] 3 SCR 773, this Court said that a mandamus can issue against a person or body to carry out the duties placed on them by the Statutes even though they are not public officials or statutory body. It was observed 13 (SCC p.589, para 6 : SCR p.778): It is, however, not necessary that the person or the authority on whom the statutory duty is imposed need be a public official or an official body. A mandamus can issue, for instance, to an official or a society to compel him to carry out the terms of the statute under or by which the society is constituted or governed and also to companies or corporations to carry out duties placed on them by the statutes authorising their undertakings. A mandamus would also lie against a company constituted by a statute for the purpose of fulfilling public responsibilities. (See Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd Ed. Vol. II p. 52 and onwards). 22. Here again we may point out that mandamus cannot be denied on the ground that the duty to be enforced is not imposed by the statute. Commenting on the development of this law, Professor De Smith states: "To be enforceable by mandamus a public duty does not necessarily have to be one imposed by statute. It may be sufficient for the duty to have been imposed by charter, common law, custom or even contract." 14 (Judicial Review of Administrative 'Act 4th Ed. p. 540). We share this view. The judicial control over the fast expanding maze of bodies effecting the rights of the people should not be put into water-tight compartment. It should remain flexible to meet the requirements of variable circumstances. Mandamus is a very wide remedy which must be easily available 'to reach injustice wherever it is found'. Technicalities should not come in the way of granting that relief under Article 226.” 14. Although the powers conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are very wide and there is no express limitation on exercise of that power. 15. It is an admitted fact that the conduct of the respondent-Bank attracts Section 316 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”) (formerly known as 409 of IPC) as the petitioners have entrusted their property and now after full and final settlement of the loan account, the respondent-Bank has still not returned the Gold belonging to the petitioners. 16. The respondent-Bank being a public sector bank engaged in public functions, falls within the ambit of Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, As per the law rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter 15 of Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust (supra), where it was held that a writ can be issued against a body performing public duty, irrespective of whether it falls under the definition of "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 17. From perusal of the records of the case, it is transpires that a criminal case was registered against the petitioners before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, wherein the petitioners moved an application under Section 503 of the BNSS of the for the release of seized properties, including house and the bank accounts, which was rejected vide order dated 17.09.2024 and thereafter, the petitioners have preferred a revision before the learned 6th Additional District & Sessions Judge, who vide order dated 25.11.2024, partly allowed the revision and directed for removal of the seal from the house of the petitioners as also directing for de-freezing of all the accounts and it was further directed that any amount lying in the Account No.0796102100000388, one year prior to the incident and six months after the incident shall not be handled by the petitioners, but the respondent-Bank has wrongfully withheld the release of the pledged gold of the petitioners. 18. It is further reflected from the records of the cases that the petitioners have cleared all outstanding dues in gold loan Account No.165400NH00000046 and Account No.165400NH00000037, 16 respective through a one-time settlement on 06.01.2025 and 29.01.2025, respectively and in pursuance thereof, the respondent-Bank itself issued a "No Due Certificate" on 29.01.2025 for both the account numbers, but the respondent Bank has arbitrarily and illegally withheld the mortgaged gold ornaments of the petitioner and till date, the said gold ornaments have not been returned to the petitioners. 19. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the petitioners have cleared all outstanding dues in gold loan Account No.165400NH00000046 and Account No.165400NH00000037, respective through a one- time settlement on 06.01.2025 and 29.01.2025, respectively and in pursuance thereof, the respondent-Bank itself issued a "No Due Certificate" on 29.01.2025 for both the account numbers, the respondent-Bank is directed to return all the gold ornaments belonging to the petitioners within a period of 60 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 20. With the aforementioned directions/observations, both the writ petitions being WPC No.1164/2025 and WPC No.1366/2025 stand allowed. There shall be no order as to cost(s). Sd/-- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh