18.08.2026 Sl. no. DL 26 Court No. 25 Asraf, A.R.(Ct.) In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Case No. WPA 8601 of 2026 In the matter of : SRI PARTHA DAN … Petitioner VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. … Respondents For the Petitioner : Dr. Bishnupada Dutta Mr. Shamik Bakshi … Advocates For the Respondent / SBI : Mr. Debashis Saha Mr. Avirup Roy Sanyal Ms. Sucheta Pal Mr. Jyotishman Sarkar … Advocates 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for an order directing the bank to release an amount of the fixed deposits along with its maturity amount and interest. The petitioner also prays for compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the father of the petitioner has obtained ten fixed deposits totaling amounts to Rs.6,00,000/- and all the original term deposits are with the petitioner. All the term deposits matured long back and the petitioner is the nominee of all fix deposit receipts. Page 2 3. He submits that mother and father of the petitioner have passed away and the petitioner being the sole nominee has requested the bank for release of the matured amount along with interest but the bank has not released the same. 4. He submits that the petitioner has filed a case before the District Consumer Commission but subsequently the same was withdrawn and filed the present writ petition. 5. Initially the petitioner has filed an application before the learned Commission for transfer of the case to other Commission but the same was withdrawn. Subsequently, the petitioner again filed an application for transfer, the same was rejected with cost. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has filed civil revisional application before this Court but the same was rejected. 6. Counsel for the bank submits that during hearing before the learned Commission, the Commission directed the petitioner to file nomination of the fixed deposit as claimed by the petitioner but the petitioner has not filed any nomination and withdrawn the case from the Commission. 7. Learned counsel for the bank has raised the point of maintainability of the instant writ application Page 3 and submits that the petitioner has initially filed a case before the District Consumer Redressal Commission. 8. Learned counsel for the bank submits that as per Section 452A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the petitioner is required to file nomination but in the present case, the petitioner has not filed any nomination but has only executed an affidavit before the Notary Public which is not acceptable. 9. This Court finds that the writ application is not maintainable as the petitioner has withdrawn the case filed before the District Consumer Redressal Forum on 16th March, 2026 without any leave to file afresh or to take appropriate steps and the petitioner is not a nominee in the fixed term deposit receipts of his father. 10. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed. However, the dismissal of the writ petition will not prevent the petitioner for taking appropriate steps before the appropriate forum for realization of the said amount from the bank. 11. There shall be no order as to costs. Page 4 12. All parties shall act on the basis of server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 13. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. ( Krishna Rao, J. )