HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 42382 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J. HON'BLE VIVEK SARAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anil Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and learned Standing Counsel for the State- Respondents and perused the record. 2. It is admitted between the learned counsel for the parties that identical controversy has already been decided by coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-C No. 41649 of 2025, Vandana Babbar and another Vs. Punjab National of India vide judgement and order dated 25.03.2026. The said order reads as under:- "1. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to correct the name and style of respondent No.- 1 in the array of the parties forthwith. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 3. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has prayed for following relief: "A. Issue a writ of mandamus commanding and directing upon the respondent bank to accept and release the amount of money in the FDR Nos. 070900PU00030073, 070900DP00021641, 070900PU00072486 and 070900DP00019664 in favour of the petitioners, who are the registered nominees of the deceased bank account holder, i.e. late Ms. Suraksha Rani Bhatia." 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that in an identical set of facts this Court has disposed of the case of Vandana Babbar and another v. Central Bank of India, Through its Branch Manager, Sadar Bazar Branch in Writ - C No.- 1714 of 2026 decided on 17th April, 2026 relying upon the order passed in Writ - C No.- 42646 of 2025. The order passed by this Court in Writ - C No.- 42646 of 2025 is reproduced hereunder: "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent-bank. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners whose grievance Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anwar Hussain, Ashish Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anil Kumar Bajpai, Ashish Agrawal, Gautam, Manoj Kumar Singh Hemant Kumar Mishra .....Petitioner(s) Union Bank Of India, Branch Mumfordganj Branch .....Respondent(s) is that though they are nominees to the account of the deceased where four FDRs in favour of the petitioners herein as enumerated in paragraph no.2 of the petition at page 4, are lying with the bank and after passing away of the account holder Suraksha Rani Bhatia, the same has not been released in favour of the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent - Bank submits that there is succession case that has been filed by Vivek Bhatia, nephew of the deceased which he subsequently withdrew. The said Vivek Bhatia was claiming his interest in the property on the basis of the Will allegedly executed by the deceased. 4. Be that as it may, the same notwithstanding, the respondent - Bank is directed to forthwith disburse the amount shown in the FDRs in favour of the petitioners, upon the petitioners producing the original FDRs. On the date when FDRs are presented to the respondent - bank after due verification of the nominees shall release the amount in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners shall hold the amount in trust subject to final settlement taking place on a subsequent date or subject to any order passed by a court of the competent jurisdiction in any succession case / testamentary case. 5. With the above, the present writ petition stands disposed off." 5. Per contra, it is submitted by Ms. Sudha Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent - bank that although the bank has no objection to the order proposed to be passed but the fact is that petitioners are not the original FDR holders but the nominees. 6. Upon a pointed query being made learned counsel for the petitioner states that since the original FDR holders had died therefore, the nominees have the right to present their claim for getting the FDR lying in the bank liquidated. 7. Ms. Divya Yadav, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent states that she has also no objection in the event petition is disposed of in terms of the order passed on Writ - C No.- 42646 of 2025. 8. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of in terms of the order passed in Writ - C No.- 42646 of 2025. Additionally providing that in the matter of payment against the FDRs the Section 45ZA of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and other relevant bank rules shall be followed." 3. Since the controversy involved in the present case is identical to the controversy involved in the aforesaid case, the present writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgement. September 29, 2026 Gaurav Kuls WRIC No. 42382 of 2025 2 (Vivek Saran,J.) (Prakash Padia,J.) Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad