- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41088 WP No. 26312 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.26312 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. MRS. AMINA ARSHIYA FAROOQ W/O MOHAMED FAROOQ AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO. 62 MOSQUE ROAD FRAZER TOWN BENGALURU - 560005. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. VIJETHA R. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SPECIAL OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY IMA AND OTHER KPID CASES, BANGALORE 3RD FLOOR, PODIUM BLOCK V.V.TOWER DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560001. 2. HDFC BANK MOSQUE ROAD BRANCH 102 CHAWLA REGENCY, FRASER TOWN MOSQUE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560005 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VEERESH R. BUDIHAL, ADVOCATE FOR R1; Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41088 WP No. 26312 of 2025 SRI. JAI M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE SUMMONS BEARING NO.SPLOCA/IMA/ENQ- 1/09/2025-26 DATED 18.07.2025 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 UNDER SECTIONS 3(1A), 6(2)(C) AND 6(2)(i) OF THE KPIDFE ACT, 2004 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B.; AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the summons dated 18.07.2025 issued by respondent No.1 under Section 3 (1a), 6(2)(c) and 6(2)(i) of Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors In Financial Establishments Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') for production of information and documents. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41088 WP No. 26312 of 2025 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, the petitioner had appeared before the respondent No.1-Special Officer and Competent Authority as per the Annexure-B. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the relief/s sought for in writ petition does not survive for consideration and the petitioner has to pursue the proceedings before the competent forum for redressal of her grievance. 4. It is also to be noted that, petitioner has challenged the freezing order dated 18.07.2025 (Annexure-C) inter-alia questioned the Endorsement dated 01.08.2025 (Annexure-E) issued by the respondent No.1. 5. On careful consideration of the reasons assigned by the respondent No.1, as well as the scope and ambit of Rule 5 of Act, which provides for - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41088 WP No. 26312 of 2025 satisfaction of the authority, if the property in question is liable to be attached is likely to be transferred, and as such, looking into the pit and substance of the Act, as well as to protect the interest of the depositors, the competent authority, by well reasoned impugned order, freezed the account of the petitioner which is by exercising the satisfaction of the authority based on the material available on record and as such, this court cannot sit against the such reasoned impugned order passed by the competent authority under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India. Insofar as impugned Endorsement dated 01.08.2025 (Annexure-E) is concerned, the competent authority has granted seven days time to the petitioner to submit all the documents pertaining to the proceedings as per reply dated 28.07.2025 (Annexure-E) and therefore, the competent authority rightly, rejected the plea made by the petitioner to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41088 WP No. 26312 of 2025 produce the documents beyond the specified time. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders passed by respondent- authorities. However, since the proceedings is pending consideration before the competent authority, it is for the said authority to take decision in the matter on merits and therefore, with this observation, the writ petition is disposed of. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50