IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 16845 OF 2024 Between: 1. Maddukuri Veerraju, S/o M. Gangaraju, Aged about 79 years, Occ: Cultivation, 2. Muddukuri Kishore Kumar, S/o. M.Veerraju, Aged about 51 years, Occ: Business, (Both the Petitioners are residents of 1-190, Injarapuvari Street, Annadevarapeta, Tallapudi Mandal, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh) ...Petitioners AND 1. The Union of India, represented by its Secretary Ministry of Finance New Delhi- 110001. 2. The State Bank of India, Rep. by its Chief Manager, Gunfoundry, Abids Hyderabad, Telangana. 3. The State Bank of India, Rep by its Manager, Markapur Road, Dwaraka Thirumala Branch, Eluru District, Andhra Pradesh - 534341. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a) a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the Respondent Nos 2 and 3 in not / permitting the Petitioner to operate Locker No. 7 (SDV No 50182241140) ) at the State Bank of India, Markapur Road, Dwaraka Thirumala Branch, (Branch Code-21250) as arbitrary, illegal, and b) consequently direct the Respondent No's 2 and 3 to permit the Petitioners to operate Locker No. 7 (SDV No 50182241140) ) at the State Bank of India, Markapur Road, Dwaraka Thirumala Branch, (Branch Code-21250) upon production of a notarized indemnity bond for a sum equivalent to the value of the articles therein and Grant such other. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No's 2 and 3 to permit the Petitioners to operate Locker No. 7 (SDV No: 50182241140) at the State Bank of India, Markapur Road, Dwaraka Thirumala Branch, (Branch Code-21250) pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI. MEDAPATI SANTOSH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2&3: SRI MD SALEEM The Court made the following order: 1 / APHC010332272024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 16845/2024 Between: Maddukuri Veerraju and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.MEDAPATI SANTOSH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.MD SALEEM 2. The Court made the following: r 2 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of 1. India, claiming the following relief: To issue (a) A writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not permitting the petitioner to operate Locker No.7 (SDV No.50182241140) at the State Bank of India, Markapur Road, Dwaraka Tirumala Branch, (Branch Code-21250) as arbitrary, illegal and (b) Consequently direct Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to permit the petitioners to operate Locker No.7 (SDV No.50182241140) at the State Bank of India, Markapur Road, Dwaraka Tirumala Branch, (Branch Code-21250) upon production of a notarized indemnity bond for a sum equivalent to the value of the articles therein... Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the 2. respondents. Learned counsel for petitioners straight away takes this Court 3. through the order, dated 31.10.2019, passed by learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.11990 of 2019, as the facts and circumstances of this case are similar to the present case. Learned counsel for the respondents does not refute the submission 4. made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Relevant paragraph of 3 the order passed in W.P.No.11990 of 2019 dated 31.10.2019 is extracted hereunder: The circular relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent deals with situation where claims of access to the lockers are made by parties directly to the Officers of the Bank. The circular relied upon merely enhances the existing powers/limits of the power of the Managers. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the clause relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent deals with the power of a Zonal Manager to directly release the articles and nothing more. If a party approaches the Zonal Manager of the respondent-Bank, he is empowered to grant access to the locker against the indemnity of the claimant with two third party sureties. This does not mean in every case, an individual/legal heir should give an indemnity with two sureties. This Court by following the earlier order of a learned single Judge of this Court in WP.No.12268 of 2012 is of the opinion that the personal indemnity of the petitioner is sufficient. If any claim is made by a third party, the interest of the Bank is safeguarded by the indemnity to be given by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that there shall be an order as prayed for and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to return the articles/valuables in Bank locker NO.A-3170 relating to the Savings Account No.025910021006238 at Andhra Bank, Jangareddygudem to the petitioner herein. The articles in the locker should be evaluated by the Banks evaluer. The petitioner should execute an indemnity bond agreeing to indemnify the respondent-Bank against, any claims, actions etc., to the value of the articles which will be delivered to her. The entire exercise should be completed within a period of three senior 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs" In view of the same, for the reasons alike in the aforesaid order, this Writ Petition is also allowed of in terms of the order dated 31.10.2019, passed by learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.11990 of 2019. Further Respondent Nos.2 & 3 is directed to return the articles/valuables in Bank locker No.7 (SDV No.50182241140) to the petitioners herein. The articles in the locker should be evaluated by the Bank’s evaluer. The petitioners should execute indemnity bond agreeing to indemnify the respondent - Bank against any claims, actions etc., to the value of the articles which will be delivered to them. The entire exercise should be completed within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 5. Registry is directed to attach a copy of the order dated 31.10.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.No.11990 of 2019 to this order. 6. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ 7. Petition shall stand closed. Sd/- A. VENUGOPALA RAO assistANT,REGISTRAR^^ //TRUE COPY// OFFICER SE To 1. The Secretary Ministry of Finance, Union of India, New Delhi - 110001. 2. The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Gunfoundry, Abids, Hyderabad, Telangana. 3. The Manager, State Bank of India, Markapur Road, Dwaraka Thirumala Branch, Eluru District, Andhra Pradesh - 534341 4. One CC to Sri. Medapati Santosh Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri. M D Saleem Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Deputy Solicitor General of India [OPUC] 7. Three CD Copies ( Along with a copy of the order dated 31.10.2019 passed by this Court in WP No. 11990 of 2019) GSC 1 HIGH COURT DATED:07/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.16845 of 2024 gfandh^!^ X 2 7 JAN 2C:J Co o Current Section '■r ALLOWING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS 7 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU WP.No.11990 of 2019 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking an order of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.3 in insisting upon production of a surety for return of the articles belonging to the deceased father of the petitioner situated in the locker being operated in the premises of the 3'''^ respondent-Bank and for other reliefs. The petitioner is the daughter of late Ratnagiri Prasad. Both of her parents have pre-deceased her. The petitioner’s late father was maintaining locker bearing No.A-3170 with As the petitioner’s father and the 3'''* respondent-Bank. mother had died, the petitioner* wanted access to the locker and to collect the articles. The petitioner’s father also owned some shares. For claiming the proceeds of the same, the petitioner filed a succession OP and secured a decree in the As far as the ornaments are concerned, it was also same. mentioned in the said order that a Succession Certificate is not required in respect of gold ornaments lying with the Bank in the locker. The petitioner states that she has submitted all the requisite proofs and then made a representation on It contains an endorsement which is not very 16.08.2019. legible but the typed copies suggests that the 2"^ respondent wanted the petitioner to submit documents along with sureties of Rs.20 lakhs each for giving her the gold ornaments 2 which are in the locker. Questioning the same, the writ petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner set out all the facts which are mentioned earlier and argued that the regulations of the RBI which are filed as a material paper dealing with the situation state that the respondents should adopt a customer friendly proceedings in consultation with their legal advisors for giving access to legal heirs/legal representatives about the deceased locker. Article 3.4 of the Regulation issued by RBI on 17.04.2017 deals with the same. She points out that there is absolutely no embargo or restriction which is imposed in this regulation or in the Banking Regulation Act. Contrary to the same, the respondents are insisting on production of ‘sureties’. It is this direction that is questioned in the writ petition. In reply to this, Mrs.V.Dyumani, learned standing counsel for 3’'^ respondent-Bank argued that the RBI Regulation, which is referred to also gives a direction to the respondent-Bank to adopt a customer friendly procedure. Therefore, she submits that there is no bar for the respondents in adopting their own procedure. She also submits that a learned single Judge of this Court in WP.No. 12668 of 2012 dealt with the similar issue and held that the petitioner should give a notarised indemnity bond for a sum equivalent to the value of the valuables inside the 3 / Bank locker. Learned counsel for the Bank also relied upon a circular dated 12.10.2016 issued by the respondent-Bank, wherein it is directed as follows: Claims for Access to Lockers: “Claims for access to lockers of the deceased constituents, in the absence of nomination, can be sanctioned by Zonal Managers against indemnity of the claimants and two third party sureties without specifying the amount of indemnity.” The learned counsel for the respondent-Bank argued that the respondent was within its rights in insisting on the production of an indemnity with two sureties. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that no error was committed by the respondents and that therefore they are within their rights in demanding sureties. Learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for respondent No.l essentially submitted that this is a matter relating to the decision taken by respondent No.3 and that the Union of India did not have any role to play in this. He also pointed out that no State action was being questioned and that the Union of India is needlessly added as a party to the writ petition. This Court after hearing both the learned counsel and the facts and circumstances notices the following: (a) There is no dispute in this case of the identity of the petitioner. There « 4 is no dispute about the fact that her parents pre-deceased her. (b) She has filed Exs.P. 1 and P.2 certificates which are death certificates of her parents. She has also filed a Proper Person Certificate showing that she is the daughter of the deceased Ratnagiri Prasad (father), (c) She has filed Succession OP.No.234 of 2018 and obtained a decree for claiming the share amounts of the deceased-father. The decree dated 02.07.2019 is also filed, (d) The petitioner has also filed her Aadhar Card and PAN card which show that she is the daughter of late Ratnagiri Prasad. Coming to the guidelines issued by the RBI through ‘The Committee of Procedures and Performance Audit on Public Services (CPPAPS)” in relation to safe custody articles/safe deposit lockers, this Court notices that the RBI has been advising the Bank to simplify the procedures, where a nomination is made by the locker hirer. Clear directions are given to the effect that there is no need to obtain Succession Certificate, Indemnity Bond etc., in case, where a nomination is made. Access is directed to be given to the articles without any further requirement of documentation. In cases where there are no nominations, again a direction is given to adopt a customary friendly procedure in consultation with their Legal Advisors. The Bank is also cautioned to look into Sections 45 ZC and 45 ZF of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. In addition, an inventory is also directed to be prepared. Basing on this, the learned counsel for the 5 /■ respondent argued that the Banks are given liberty to decide their own procedure. Therefore, she submits that the respondents did not commit any error in demanding an indemnity bond with two sureties. This Court notices the judgement of the learned single Judge passed in WP.No. 12668 of 2012, which is cited by the learned counsel for the respondent. In that case also, the learned single Judge held that the petitioner could operate the locker upon producing a notarized indemnity bond for a sum equivalent to the value of the material/articles in the locker. Costs were also awarded to the petitioner. The learned single Judge of this Court did not state that sureties should also sign the bond. In fact, there is no reference to a surety at all in the order passed by the learned single Judge. The learned Judge also considered the issue of maintainability of a writ. No such defence is raised in this case. This Court is however compelled to act as it finds that there is a breach of a legal duty. In the case on hand, as mentioned earlier, the petitioner has done more than enough to prove her identity, documents which are described in the earlier paragraphs clearly show that she is the daughter of late Ratnagiri Prasad. The Succession Certificate is a judgment passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction. She was found entitled to receive the share amounts etc., standing in the name of her deceased The ■B** 6 father. On the strength of these documents, a Court of competent jurisdiction was convinced that she is entitled to the shares and gave an order in her favour. In addition, she has submitted her ‘Aadhar Card’, ‘Pan Card’ etc. Even otherwise, this Court is of the opinion that insisting upon two sureties is not really called for in the facts and circumstances of this IS not in dispute and there is no claim from any one else. A surety is a person who is called upon to make good the ‘loss’ that would be caused to the Bank. In the case where the petitioners identity case on hand, the upon to execute an indemnity and also The purpose of the indemnity is to make good the loss that would be caused to the Bank, if there IS a claim at a later date with reference to the ornaments. petitioner is called furnish two sureties. In para 15 of the writ affidavit, it is very clearly mentioned that the petitioner is willing to indemnify respondent Nos.2 and 3. The purpose of may be caused to the Bank, handing over the an indemnity is to make good the loss that The respondent-Bank is also contents after an inventory is taken. Therefore, they can at best insist upon an indemnity from the petitioner for the value of the ornaments/contents. This would safe guard their interest, for them to insist There is no rational or logical upon two sureties, endorsement of the Bank Manager is not very clear that nevertheless the fact reason The remains that the petitioner states on oath that the respondent-Bank wanted two sureties of Rs.20 7 The Bank which is hiring out the space in the lakhs each, form of a locker can only protect its interest from any claims; garding the contents of the locker. re The circular relied upon by the learned counsel for the deals with situation where claims of access to the Officers of respondent lockers are made by parties directly to the senior The circular relied upon merely enhances the the Bank. of the Managers. existing powers/limits of the power Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the clause relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent deals with the Zonal Manager to directly release the articles and If a party approaches the Zonal Manager of the empowered to grant access to the of the claimant with two third power of a nothing more respondent-Bank, he is locker against the indemnity an This does not mean in every case, indemnity with two party sureties, individual/legal heir should give an sureties. the earlier order of a learned in WP.No. 12268 of 2012 is of the the personal indemnity of the petitioner is sufficient. If any claim is made by a third party, the interest of the Bank is safeguarded by the indemnity to be given by This Court by following single Judge of this Court in that opinion the petitioner. this Court is of the opinion In that view of the matter, that there shall be an order as prayed for and respondent 8 Nos.2 and 3 are directed to return the articles/valuables in Bank locker NO.A-3170 relating to the Savings Account No.025910021006238 at Andhra Bank, Jangareddygudem to the petitioner herein. The articles in the locker should be evaluated by the Banks evaluer. The petitioner should execute an indemnity bond agreeing to indemnify the respondent-Bank against any claims, actions etc., to the value of the articles which will be delivered to her. The entire exercise should be completed within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,J Date : 31.10.2019 KLP