Anuja S vs State Bank Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 10794 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
    THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 27TH ASWINA, 1945
                       WP(C) NO. 14807 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          ANUJA S
          AGED 32 YEARS
          D/O.SABU V.S., MOOTHANVILAKOM, VAKKOM P.O.,
          ATTINGAL, TRIVANDRUM-695308.
          BY ADVS.
          GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL)
          A.R.DILEEP
          P.J.JOE PAUL
          MANU SRINATH


RESPONDENTS:

    1     STATE BANK OF INDIA,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE,
          ROTARY JUNCTION, POOJAPPURA MAIN ROAD, KESARI NAGAR,
          POOJAPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695012.
    2     GENERAL MANAGER,
          STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE,
          ROTARY JUNCTION, POOJAPPURA MAIN ROAD, KESARI NAGAR,
          POOJAPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695012.
    3     BRANCH MANAGER,
          STATE BANK OF INDIA, THENGANA-PERUMTHURUTHY ROAD,
          THRIKKODITHANAM, KOTTAYAM, KERALA-686105.
    4     RINI RAJ R.,
          ASSISTANT MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA,
          THENGANA-PERUMTHURUTHY ROAD, THRIKKODITHANAM,
          KOTTAYAM, KERALA-686105.
          BY ADVS.
          GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA)(SR.)
          AMAL GEORGE
          I.DINESH MENON


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 14807 OF 2021               2

                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner alleges that, without her permission and

concurrence, the 4th respondent - Assistant Manager of the State Bank

of India, had accessed her account; and that, therefore, she has

preferred Ext.P3 complaint before the 1 st respondent - Bank. She

alleges that, in spite of Ext.P3 having been preferred as early as on

01.03.2021, no action has been taken on it; and that she has not even

been given an opportunity of making a statement. She, therefore, prays

that 2nd respondent - General Manager be directed to take immediate

action on Ext.P3, after affording her an opportunity of being heard and

complete proceedings thereon, within a time frame to be fixed by this

Court.

2. In response, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st

respondent - Bank, submitted that, contrary to the assertions of the

petitioner, Ext.P3 has already been taken cognizance of by the

competent Authority of the Bank and an enquiry initiated against the

4th respondent. He submitted that petitioner will certainly be called and

her version recorded in due course. He, therefore, prayed that this writ

petition be dismissed.

3. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent submitted that the

allegations against her client are completely wrong and that she will be

able to establish it in the enquiry, which has now been initiated by the

Bank.

4. When I evaluate and consider the afore rival submissions, it is

indubitable that, if the petitioner has made an allegation through

Ext.P3 that 4th respondent had unauthorizedly accessed her bank

account, it is a matter to be investigated and dealt with appropriately,

under the relevant Regulations and Rules, by the 1 st respondent - Bank.

Since their learned Standing Counsel now says that action for the same

has already begun, I am certain that a time frame should be fixed

because, Ext.P3 has been filed as early as in the year, 2021.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and direct

the 2nd respondent, or such other competent Authority of the 1 st

respondent, to complete proceedings on Ext.P3 complaint, after

hearing the petitioner, as as also the 4th respondent, as expeditiously as

is possible but not later than six months from the date of receipt of a

copy of this judgment.

I also leave liberty to the petitioner to invoke any other remedy,

including under the applicable Criminal Laws; for which purpose, all

contentions are left open.

Sd/-DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/19.10

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14807/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER THE RTI ACT DATED 2.12.2020 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT SBI.

Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONSE NO.RBO III/TVM/548 DATED 16.12.2020 ALONG WITH TRANSACTIONAL DETAILS OF PETITIONER'S SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT, ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT SBI.

Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 1.3.2021 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT SBI.

Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.LHO/CS/GM/151/2021-22 DATED 5.3.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT SBI. Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 19.3.2021 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RTI ACT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT SBI.

Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.4.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT SBI.

Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 14.5.2021 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT SBI (APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER RTI ACT).

Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE PRIVACY STATEMENT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT SBI.

Exhibit P9 True copy of the RTI Application dated 28.12.2021 preferred by the Petitioner before the SBI Vakkom Branch Exhibit P10 True Copy of the RTI Reply issued by PIO, SBI Vakkom Branch to the Petitioner Exhibit P10A True Copy of the Account statement of the Petitioner's SBI Account Exhibit P11 True Copy of the RTI Application dated 18.11.2021 preferred before the Kadakkavur Police Station by the Petitioner Exhibit P12 True copy of the RTI Reply dated 15.12.2021 issued by the SHO, Kadakkavur Police Station along with the Report prepared by the Investigating Officer on the Complaint preferred by the Petitioner Exhibit P13 True Copy of the Letter dated 23.01.2023 issued by the CPIO, SBI to the Petitioner RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R1(A) True photocopy of the report submitted before the Deputy General Manager (B and O), Administrative Office (AO) Kottayam dated 12/04/2021