$~189 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4889/2026 BABU S ....Petitioner Through: Mr. Bhadresh Harikant, Mr. Shivam Tiwari and Mr. Dravin, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. B. Ramaswamy CGSC, Mr. Sarthak Rana G. P., Mr. Abhishek Panwar, Advs. for R1 Mr. Santosh Kumar Rout. Standing Counsel for SBI/R10 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH O R D E R % 20.07.2026 1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers: “a). issue writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or Order, to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for getting details of the grounds for FREEZE/HOLD ORDER issued on the frozen bank account, along with the total disputed amount; b). issue writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or Order, to respondent Nos. 1 to 9, directing issuance of DE-FREEZE ORDER to Respondent Nos. 10A and 10B; c). issue writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or Order, to Respondent Nos. 10A and 10B for implementing the said DE-FREEZE This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/07/2026 at 11:40:56 ORDER and lift the FREEZE/HOLD put on the frozen bank account;. ...” 2. For the reasons stated above, issue notice. 3. Mr. Ramaswamy, learned CGSC, and Mr. Rout, learned standing counsel, accept notice on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 10, respectively. 4. There is nobody appearing on behalf of the other respondents. In view of urgency, the matter is being taken up for hearing. 5. Mr. Rout, learned standing counsel for respondent No. 10, has handed over the counter affidavit, which is taken on record, wherein as per Annexure A, a sum of Rs. 24,290/- is the disputed amount. 6. I am of the view that freezing of an account is an action entailing serious consequences creating hardships for individual/commercial entities in their smooth functioning and the same might result in commercial death of the petitioner. The respondent bank cannot be permitted to take such harsh measures without any application of mind. 7. For the said reasons, the impugned action of account freezing in the present case is disproportionate and an arbitrary exercise of power thereby striking a blow at the fundamental rights of the petitioner. The impugned action is without due application of mind as an indiscriminate blanket freeze has been imposed on the account of the petitioner for an allegedly suspicious entry of a meagre amount. 8. Hence, subject to the respondent bank maintaining a lien of Rs. 24,290/-, the petitioner will be permitted to operate the account No. 20040304069 maintained with the respondent No. 10 bank. 9. In view of the above directions, Mr. Harikant, learned counsel for the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/07/2026 at 11:40:56 petitioner, does not press the present petition with liberty to take action as per the SOP for removing the lien on the balance amount of Rs. 24,290/-. 10. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition is disposed of. JASMEET SINGH, J JULY 20, 2026/AS This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/07/2026 at 11:40:56