IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 31479 of 2025 Adikandha Pradhan ..…... Petitioner(s) Mr. Prasanta Kumar Nanda, Adv. -Versus- State Bank of India & Ors. ……. Opposite Party(s) Mr. M.K. Mohapatra, Adv. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI ORDER 09.01.2026 Order No. 03. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue Rule Nisi calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ(s) shall not be issued to direct the Opp. Party No.2 to allow the petitioner to withdraw or transact the account bearing No.30096587173 and further be pleased to continue such account by allowing the petitioner to operate the such account and on perusal of the causes so shown or insufficient causes shown to make the said rule absolute may pass such other order/orders as deemed just and proper.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was working as Sepoy in RO, AMC vide Regiment No.13977424M. He Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 12-Jan-2026 17:53:55 Signature Not Verified 2 further submits that the Petitioner and his wife named Ratana Pradhan/Opposite Party No.3 have opened a joint saving account bearing A/c. No.30096587173 with the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch, Chhatrapur in the district of Ganjam. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that the Petitioner and his wife both are staying separately. The parental authority of the Petitioner has disbursed the pension amount since 2006 in the aforesaid joint account. Since the wife of the Petitioner withdrew the pension amount of the Petitioner, the Petitioner had requested the Bank not to allow the Opposite Party No.3 to withdraw the amount from the said joint account. He further submits that there was dispute between the Petitioner and the Opposite Party No.3 and both are staying separately. Accordingly, the Bank authorities did not allow the Petitioner to withdraw his pension amount. Hence, the Petitioner is constrained to approach this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the Bank submits that the Petitioner himself had given a letter dated 01.10.2024 to the Bank restraining his wife to withdraw the amount. Accordingly, the Bank is not allowed to anybody to withdraw the amount. 7. In such view of the matter and considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court directs the Petitioner and the Opposite Party No.3 to approach the Opposite Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 12-Jan-2026 17:53:55 Signature Not Verified 3 Party No.2/Bank together and file an undertaking. In such event, the Bank shall do the needful within a reasonable period. 8. It is further directed that, if the Petitioner fails to convince his wife (Opposite Party No.3) in bringing her to the Bank, the Bank shall allow the Petitioner to withdraw 50% of the pension amount from the aforesaid joint account keeping 50% for the Opposite Party No.3 as residual amount and disburse the same in her favour. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. ( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Murmu Designation: P.A.