Duryodhan Sethi vs Deba Prasad Sethy & Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 12082 Ori

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                           W.P.(C) No.32015 of 2023

Duryodhan Sethi                      .....                                      Petitioner
                                                              Mr. A.K. Otta, Advocate
                                     Vs.
Deba Prasad Sethy & Anr.             .....                              Opposite Parties

                    CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

                                             ORDER

06.10.2023 Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

07.

2. The present Writ Petition has been preferred against the order dated 18.08.2023 passed in MAC Case No.05 of 2017 by the ADJ- cum- 3rd M.A.C.T., Jajpur vide which the Petition dated 03.08.2023 filed by the Petitioner with a prayer for premature release of the amount kept in shape of fix deposit in his name was rejected on the ground that the Petitioner had earlier withdrawn 50% of the deposited amount with accrued interest on the self same ground, which was allowed to be withdrawn vide order dated 04.07.2022.

3. To demonstrate before the court below that the Petitioner was justified to pray so, a certificate issued by the Renaiassance Higher Secondary School dated 13.07.2023 was appended, the contents of which is extracted below:-

TO WHO EVER IT MAY CONCERN "Certified that Namita Sethi D/o Duryodhan Sethu At/Po- Thauala, Ps-Dharmasala Dist-Jajpur is student of +2 science Roll No.-IS21-101. Her annual tuition fees including Hostel dues is Rs.80,000/-. She has to pay the said amount as +2 2nd year fee before receiving CLC and Certificates.

This is for your kind information and necessary action."

4. While dealing with the application of the Petitioner dated 03.08.2023 and rejecting the same, the court below has not dealt with the said certificate issued by the school or disbelieved the same. Rather, the sole ground of rejection of the petition of the Petitioner/Applicant is, on selfsame ground he was allowed to withdraw 50% of the deposited amount with accrued interest.

5. Mr. Hota, learned Counsel for the Petitioner , relying on the judgment dated 10.09.2014 passed by the coordinate Bench in W.P.(C) No.17233 of 2014 (Dibakar Pradhan & Another v. Iswar Chandra Majhi & Ors.) submits, law is well settled in the said regard. The money so deposited with the bank belongs to the Petitioner/Depositor . Since for the justified reason, it is required to be withdrawn pre-maturely by the Petitioner for the education of his daughter, the court below was not justified to reject the same solely on the ground that on similar plea he was permitted to withdraw 50% of the deposited amount with accrued interest.

6. Mr. Hota draws attention of this Court to judgment in Dibakar Pradhan (supra) and submits, relying on the number of judgments of the apex Court the said matter was decided. Paragaph- 9 of the said judgment is extracted below:-

"9. In the present case, it is admitted that the petitioners are parents of the deceased. The compensation awarded in their favour, is in fixed deposit for a period of six years. In first phase an amount of Rs.25,000/- from each of their fixed deposit A/Cs was permitted to be withdrawn prematurely, but subsequently when it appears that petitioner no.2 is suffering from visionary problem, for her treatment amount is required. There is iota of doubt that money so deposited belongs to the depositors/petitioners. Applying the ratio of the decision of the apex Court (supra), it is the prerogative of the depositor to utilize the amount at his own sweet will. The amount lying in deposit is

required to be withdrawn prematurely for the treatment of petitioner no.2 and such treatment requires a substantial amount. Therefore, when application was filed, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the same in proper perspective and allowed premature withdrawal of money in the fixed deposits, which belongs to them. It is admitted fact that both the petitioners are quite elderly persons. Therefore, if for the treatment of petitioner no.2, the amount is required, the learned Tribunal ought to have applied mind in proper perspective and permitted the petitioners to withdraw the amount from their fixed deposit Accounts prematurely. Therefore, taking into the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the apex Court and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this Court has no hesitation to quash the order dated 03.09.2014 passed by the 2nd Addl. District Judge-cum-MACT, Cuttack in MAC No.133 of 2006 and direct release of the said amount prematurely in favour of the petitioners, which is the pressing need for the treatment of petitioner no.2.Ordered accordingly."

7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 18.08.2023 passed in M.A.C Case No.05 of 2017, being contrary to the judgment of this court so also apex court, is here by set aside. The court below is directed to instruct the concerned bank to release the rest deferential amount available in the Bank of Maharashtra, Jagatpur Branch, Cuttack kept in a fix deposit and pay him with accrued interest within a period of two weeks hence.

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

9. Urgent certified copy of this order be issued on proper application as per rule.

10. The Petitioner is also given liberty to utilize the digitally signed copy of this order available in the official website of the Court.

11. Needless to mention here that as no relief has been sought for against the Opposite Parties, this Court did not choose to issue

notice to the said Opposite Parties.

(S.K.MISHRA) JUDGE

Banita

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BANITA PRIYADARSHINI PALEI Designation: JR. STENOGRAPHER Reason: AUTHETICATION Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 09-Oct-2023 11:57:09