IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ^ PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADl^ WRIT PETITION NO: 29886 OF 2024 ^ Between: G. Jagannadha Rao, S/o. Ramu Naidu, Aged about 55 Years, Occ Railway Employee, R/o.D.No.58-12-17, Old Karasi, NAD Post, Visakhapatnam-530 009. A.P. ...PETITIONER AND 1. State Bank of India, Represented by the Chief Manager, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District(currently Branch, Sabbavaram Anakapalle District), A.P. 2. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Sabbavaram Branch, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District(currently Anakapalle District), A.P. ...RESPONDENTS r Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or Order or Directions more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus against the 1st and 2nd Respondents for the action in withholding/freezing the petitioner's salary S.B. Account No.40446300011, as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Principles of natural justice, and against the provisions of Article^14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 1st and 2nd Respondent to unfreeze the Petitioner's salary S.B. a/c pending adjudication of the civil suit. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 1st and 2nd Respondents to unfreeze the Petitioner's salary S.B. Account No.40446300011 pending adjudication of the civil suit O.S.No.205 of 2024 before the court of II JCJ at Anakapalle. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MOHAMMED GAYASUDDIN Counsel for the Respondents: SRI VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010569122024 BBS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] 0 TUESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 29886/2024 Between: G.Jagannadha Rao ...PETITIONER AND State Bank Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT{S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.MOHAMMED GAYASUDDIN Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1. VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 29886/2024 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- ‘to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 for the action in withholding/freezing the petitioner’s salary S.B. Account No.40446300011 as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Principles of natural justice and against the provisions of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to unfreeze the petitioner’s salary S.B. account pending adjudication of the civil suit and pass such other order. ” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. the 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is having savings bank account bearing No.20007222905 at State Bank of India. The petitioner is working as a railway employee and he availed personal loan from the respondent bank to a tune of Rs.14,70,000/- on 16.09.2021. The petitioner has been paying EMIs as per the terms of the sanction upto 2023. Later, he did not choose to pay EMIs as per the terms of the sanction and his account was classified as NPA on 10.05.2024. The respondent bank also issued legal notice demanding the payment of entire amount, since the account was classified as NPA on 10.05.2024. After the i 3 notice, the respondent bank also initiated legal proceedings and filed O.S.No.205 of 2024 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge Anakapalle in the month of June, 2024. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that having filed the civil suit for recovery of money from the petitioner, taking advantage of the savings bank account with the respondent bank, the 2"^' respondent not allowing the petitioner to draw his salary amount and freezing and crediting to NPA loan account whatever salary amount is crediting to his savings account as stated supra without allowing any amount for his livelihood. The said action of the respondent is contrary to the settled preposition of law, that once the respondents initiated legal proceedings for recovery of money against the petitioner, they cannot freeze the account, whenever the amount is available with the savings accounts, even though the said savings account is with the respondents, which is also contrary to the guidelines of the RBI. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents furnished both the statement of accounts i.e., the loan account as well as savings bank account of the petitioner with the respondents. 6. On perusal of the accounts, it appears that the contention of the petitioner is true and correct. Even after filing of the suit, the respondents are not allowing the petitioner for drawing the amounts f .T 4 for his personal livelihood and moreover whenever the amounts available in the savings account transferring the said amounts to the loan account. It is further observed that an amount of Rs.86,000/- was transferred to loan account on 08.08.2024, transferred on 11.10.2024 & Rs.22,300/- was transferred on 17.12.2024. Therefore, such a practice of the respondents is contrary to Banking Regulations apart from settled preposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court. are Rs.52,291/- was 7. Having regard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and on perusal of the material placed on record, it is observed that the respondent bank is not allowing the petitioner to withdraw his salary amounts form his account for his personal use/livelihood. In fact the 2^"^ respondent filed suit for recovery of money against the petitioner in the month of June, 2024. It is settled preposition of law, having opted for recovery of money through legal proceedings they cannot be allowed to recover money by other means, once the legal proceedings are pending for consideration before the Court below. Therefore, the action of the respondents not allowing the personal withdrawals of the amounts whatever credited to his savings account and transferring the same to the loan account is highly arbitrary and contrary to law as well as RBI Regulations. |] in 1 5 8. In view of the reasons stated above, the action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be interfered. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, directing the respondents not to transfer any credit amounts lying in the petitioner’s savings account without consent of the petitioner to the loan account till the finalization of the legal proceedings, which was initiated by the respondents. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. section officer //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Chief Manager, Sabbavaram Branch, Sabbavaram Mandal Visakhapatnam District(currently Anakapalle District), A.P. 2. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Sabbavaram Branch, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam Districtfcurrently Anakapille District), A.P. 3. One CC to Sri Mohammed Gayasuddin Advocate [OPUC]' 4. One CC to Sri Venkata Rama Rao Kota Advocate [OPUC] 5. Three CD Copies TF HIGH COURT DATED:07/01/2025 ORDER g 3 HAN 2025 M Current Secwon WP.No.29886 of 2024 ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS