Bombay High Court
Narayan Shrimantrao Munde vs The Zonal Manager State Bank Of India And ... on 20 March, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:8460-DB
Writ Petition No.6491/2018
:: 1 ::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.6491 OF 2018
Narayan s/o Shrimant Munde,
Age 76 years, Occu. Agri. & Social work,
R/o Rashtramata Indira Gandhi College,
Jalna, Tal. & Dist. Jalna. ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) The Zonal Manager,
State Bank of India (Old SBH),
Zonal Office, 418, Plot No.1,
Town Centre, CIDCO, Aurangabad
Tal. & Dist. Aurangabad
2) The Assistant General Manager,
State Bank of India, RBO,
Plot No.79, Town Centre, CIDCO,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad
3) The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India (Old SBH),
June Mondha Branch,
Near Gandhi Chaman,
Jalna, Tal. & Dist. Jalna ... RESPONDENTS
.......
Mr. S.S. Thombre, Advocate for Petitioner
Mr. R.D. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondens No.2 & 3
.......
Writ Petition No.6491/2018
:: 2 ::
CORAM: ALOK ARADHE, CJ. &
S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
DATE: 20th MARCH, 2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : CHIEF JUSTICE) :
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By
consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the Writ
Petition is heard finally.
2. By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner, inter-alia,
seeks a direction to refund the amount of Demand Draft
No.636124 with the possession of the Petitioner.
3. Facts giving rise to filing of the Writ Petition, briefly
stated, are that, the Petitioner is an agriculturist. The
Petitioner, on 13/12/2008, has purchased a Demand Draft for
a sum of Rs.15,49,136/- in the name of Shubhada Co-
operative Housing Society. The aforesaid Demand Draft was
purchased by the Petitioner in favour of the Society as a
consideration for the Flat which was purchased by the
Petitioner. However, there was a dispute between the
Petitioner and the Society and the Flat was not allotted to the
Petitioner. Therefore, the Petitioner did not hand over the
:: 3 ::
Demand Draft to the Society and the same was not encashed
by the Society.
4. The Petitioner submitted an application to the
Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, RBO, Plot
No.79, Town Centre, Cidco, Aurangabad seeking the
information about the Demand Draft. Thereupon, the
Petitioner, by a communication dated 19/6/2015 was
informed that the said Demand Draft No.636124 dated
13/12/2008 for a sum of Rs.15,49,136/- is issued on the
Service Branch of State Bank of India, Mumbai. Thereupon,
the Petitioner filed an application on 5/10/2017, requesting
the respondents to refund the amount of Demand Draft.
Thereupon, the Petitioner, by communication dated
5/10/2017, was informed that the application of the
Petitioner has been forwarded for legal advice, but no legal
advice has been received. The Petitioner thereupon again
made an application 1/11/2017 and it was informed that as
the said Demand Draft was not encashed, however, the
communication sent by the Petitioner failed to evoke any
response. Hence this Petition.
:: 4 ::
5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that,
the action of the respondents in not refunding the amount of
Demand draft is arbitrary and irrational. The respondent,
which is an instrumentality for the purpose of Article 12 of
the Constitution of India, cannot be permitted to act in an
arbitrary and unfair manner while dealing with its clients.
6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the
respondents, while inviting attention of this Court to
communication dated 4/1/2020 sent by the Bank to the
Petitioner, submitted that, in case the Petitioner produces the
original Demand Draft and No Objection Certificate from the
Society, the amount of Demand Draft shall be paid to him.
7. We have considered the rival submissions of both
sides and have perused the record.
8. Admittedly, the Respondent is an instrumentality
of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution of India and supposed to act in fair, rational and
reasonable manner. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner
has purchased the Demand Draft for a sum of
Rs.15,49,136/-. It is also not in dispute that the said
:: 5 ::
Demand Draft No.636124 neither encashed nor paid and it is
also not in dispute that the Society has not allotted the flat to
the Petitioner. There appears to be no justification on the
part of the Respondents in withholding the amount of
Demand Draft for past 15 years with them. The insistence of
the Respondent that the Petitioner must use the No Objection
Certificate of the Society has no sanctity of law as no
provision of law requires that before encashing the Demand
Draft by its purchaser, the No Objection Certificate from its
proposed beneficiary should be sought. The aforesaid
contentions made on behalf of the Respondent Bank are
without substance and, therefore, cannot be accepted. It is,
therefore, directed that, in case the Petitioner produces the
original Demand Draft before the Respondent Branch
Manager, State Bank of India (Old SBH), June Mondha
Branch, Jalna, the amount of Rs.15,49,136/- shall be
refunded to him. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
Rule made absolute in above terms.
(S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
FMPathan/-
