Calcutta High Court
Moumita Biswas vs The Reserve Bank Of India And Ors on 9 October, 2025
OD-1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
WPO/684/2025
MOUMITA BISWAS
VS
THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE OM NARAYAN RAI
Date : October 9, 2025.
[VACATION BENCH]
APPEARANCE
Ms. Debanwita Pramanick, Adv.
Ms. Shreyashi Sarkar, Adv.
...for the petitioner.
Mr. S. R. Ganguly, Adv.
Mr. S. Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. I. Majumdar, Adv.
...for respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4.
Mr. Sabyasachi Roy Chowdhury, Adv.
Mr. Prasad Bhattacharya, Adv.
Ms. Shweta Banerjee, Adv.
Ms. Isha Jaiswal, Adv.
...for respondent no. 5.
The Court: The writ petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated April 29,
2025 passed by the Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India whereby the
petitioner's complaint against ICICI bank has been closed, upon holding the
same to be not maintainable, on the ground that the petitioner has approached
the Ombudsman without first approaching the ICICI bank and indicating to the
said bank the petitioner's grievances, redressal whereof was sought by her.
The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner invites the attention of
this Court to the statements made in paragraph 13 of the writ petition and
submits that the petitioner had indeed made a representation on April 10,
2025 before the respondent no. 1, detailing therein the reply dated March 17,
2025 received by the petitioner from the respondent no. 3. However, there is
nothing on record to substantiate the averments made in paragraph 13 of the
writ petition.
The Reserve Bank of India has not appeared. There is no affidavit of
service on record indicating that the Reserve Bank of India has been put on
notice that the petition would be moved before the Vacation Bench today.
However, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has handed up to
Court a letter dated October 6, 2025 addressed, inter alia, to the Reserve Bank
of India along with postal receipts and postal track record to show that the
Reserve Bank of India has been notified about the writ petition being moved
today.
Learned Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 and the
learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no. 5 submit that the writ
petition cannot be entertained inasmuch as the same is directed against the
action of a private bank. Reliance is placed in such regard on the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Shobha Vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd.
reported at 2025 Supreme (SC) 240.
Learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no. 5 further submits
that the allegation of the writ petitioner that the ornaments that had been
pledged with ICICI bank belong to the petitioner is incorrect, and that the same
belong to the mother of the respondent no. 5. The learned Advocate for the
petitioner, however, denies the same.
Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner further submits that the
instant writ petition is directed against the inaction or arbitrary action of the
Ombudsman and as such, the writ petition should be entertained.
The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner seeks leave to file a
supplementary affidavit to bring on record the representation dated April 10,
2025 along with the proof that the same was duly filed before the Ombudsman.
Since the Reserve Bank of India is not represented and the petitioner's
grievances are directed against the Ombudsman as well, such leave is granted.
The petitioner shall file such supplementary affidavit within a week and serve a
copy thereof upon the respondents.
List this matter before the Regular Bench after reopening of the Court.
(OM NARAYAN RAI, J.)
KB
AR (CR)
