Patna High Court
Surendra Nath Pandey vs The State Bank Of India And Ors on 10 January, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11423 of 2015
======================================================
Surendra Nath Pandey son of Late Mahadeo Pandey resident of village
Jhilwania, P.S. Kateya, District Gopalganj.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Bank Of India having its head quarter at Nariman Point, Mumbai,
through its Chairperson.
2. The State Bank of India, Hathua Branch, District Gopalganj through its
Branch Manager.
3. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Hathua Branch, District
Gopalganj.
4. The Reserve Bank of India, Fort, Mumbai null null
5. The Reserve Bank of India, Regional Office, South Gandhi Maida, Patna,
through its Regional Manager
6. Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation, 9th Floor, Bank of
Baroda Building, 6 Parliament Street, New Dlehi 110001, through its
Managing Director
7. The Managing Director, Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation,
9th Floor Bank of Baroda Building 6 Parliament Street, New Dlehi 110001,
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Kumar @ Alok Kr Shahi, Advocate
For the Respondent Bank: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent IRCTC: M/s R.K.Agrawal,
Sanjeev Kumar, Advocates
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 10-01-2025
1. The petitioner has filed the Writ application
for the following reliefs:
(a) For issaunce of Writ in the nature of
mandamus directing the respondents
particularly Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to credit
the amount of Rs. 11,28,283/- with interest in
the Savings Bank Account of the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.11423 of 2015 dated10-01-2025
2/13
which has been illegally withdrawn from
the same without any authorization from the
petitioner. "
2. The brief facts culled out of the Writ
petition are that the petitioner was maintaining a
Savings Bank Account No. 11453719697 in the Hathua
Branch, State Bank of India, Gopalganj. The Petitioner
visited the Branch for updating his Pass Book and
discovered that Rs. 11,28,283/- had been illegally
withdrawn from his account and credited to the
account of IRCTC on different dates between
30.04.2015
to 22.06.2015. It is submitted by the
petitioner that he had not authorized any such
transactions and had not given any instruction to the
Bank to transfer his money to IRCTC. Thereafter, the
petitioner approached the Branch Manager of the Bank
and asked him about the unauthoized debits from his
account, but the Branch Manager expressed ignorance
and helplessness in the matter. Subsequently, the
petitioner filed a report before Hathua P.S. Case No.
106 of 2015 reporting the aforesaid fraud. It is further
Patna High Court CWJC No.11423 of 2015 dated10-01-2025
submitted by the petitioner that he addressed letters to
the RBI and the IRCTC regarding the fraud. The
IRCTC sent a mail that they had provided the details of
the disputed transactions to the Bank. The petitioner
also addressed letter to the Chairperson, State Bank of
India requesting for refund of the aforesaid amount.
3. The Learned counsel of the petitioner
submits that the State Bank of India, has not taken any
interest on the complaint made by the petitioner, hence
the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court.
4. A counter affidavit was filed by the
respondent, State Bank of India. It is averred in the
counter affidavit that as per the Annexure-1 of the Writ
application, about 295 transactions were made using
the debit card of the petitioner over 53 days and the
petitioner had also availed the facility of SMS alter on
the Mobile number 9934402334 where SMS were sent
during the said transactions, The petitioner had also
used the ATM card for personal withdrawals apart from
the transactions made to IRCTC. It is further submitted
Patna High Court CWJC No.11423 of 2015 dated10-01-2025
that all the transactions described by the petitioner
were not conducted from the Branch or any ATM centre
of the State Bank of India. All the transactions were
carried out from a personal computer using the debit
card, which can only be used by the owner of the debit
card, because at the time of booking of tickets on
IRCTC website, the following details were requested to
be entered:-
i) Petitioner personal log in and personal
password
ii) ATM card no.
iii) CVV No. which is mentioned back of
the ATM card
iv) Validity of period of ATM card
v) At the time of final payment one-time
password (OTP) was send by the IRCTC (OTP) to the
registered mobile number which was registered with the
account of the petitioner, and after entering the same the
transaction would be completed.
5. It is further averred in the counter
Patna High Court CWJC No.11423 of 2015 dated10-01-2025
affidavit that approximately 293 transactions were
made in about 53 days, and it is surprising that the
petitioner had no knowledge of these transactions. It is
further stated that Bank is unable to express any definite
opinion because it has no definite knowledge or
responsibility regarding the transactions made. Once the
Bank had issued the ATM card, it becomes the
responsibility of the individual/ petitioner to protect and
maintain the secrecy of the ATM card. It is further stated
that ATM card has already been blocked and the
petitioner has also lodged an FIR bearing Hathua P.S
Case No. 106/2015 dated 22.6.2015.
6. The Bank has also provided parawise
reply. The respondent Bank has submitted that the
prayer made is not maintainable because the respondent
has nothing to do with who has purchased the ticket
from IRCTC, and there is there is no involvement of
the Bank beyond its usual course of business.
7. A counter affidavit was also filed on
behalf of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 (IRCTC). It is averred
Patna High Court CWJC No.11423 of 2015 dated10-01-2025
in the counter affidavit that the ticket booking processes
requires the user to register itself with I.R.C.T.C. For
registration a user name, a unique mobile number and
an address are required. During registration an OTP i.e.
verification code is sent to the mobile number
mentioned in the registration form, however, address is
not verified. Moreover, at the time of registration, bank
details are not required and for the booking tickets after
loging is with the user I.D, the user fills up the journey
details in the form provided. After completion of the
form, the system asks for the payment from the Bank,
then authenticates for the bank details and provides
clearance for booking the tickets. The Card number used
for booking is not stored in I.R.C.T.C's Database.
Hence, I.R.C.T.C is not aware of the card number
through which the user makes the payment, while
booking the e-ticket. It is further averred in the counter
affidavit that as soon as the respondent (I.R.C.T.C)
received the complaint from the petitioner having
saving Bank account 11453719697 regarding the
Patna High Court CWJC No.11423 of 2015 dated10-01-2025
unauthorized withdrawal of Rs. 11,28,283/- for booking
e-ticket through IRCTC for 292 transactions, they
thoroughly checked the details of all the transactions
and sent the details to Bank through mail on 27 th June,
2015. It is further contended that after receiving the
complaint, all the associated IDs were deactivated. It is
also contended that by the time they received the
complaint, all the transactions and their respective dates
of journey had already expired. The e-tickets mentioned
in the application were booked using SBI- Debit Card
bearing ATM Card No. 6220180294500007736, as
confirmed by the concerned department of State Bank
of India. Users are responsible for handling their debit
cards for online transactions carefully. It is the issue
between user and his card issuing bank. Therefore,
IRCTC is nowhere involved in the transaction process.
8. A detailed reply to the counter affidavit
was filed contending that when it has come to the
knowledge of the petitioner that the fraudulent
transaction was made in the respondent bank, the then
Patna High Court CWJC No.11423 of 2015 dated10-01-2025
Branch Manager, Hathua, Mr. Naveen Prakash was
posted in Madhubani district. After lodging F.I.R.
Hathua P.S. case No. 106/15 dated 22.06.15, the cyber
cell investigated the matter and identified one culprit
Rahul Jha, who operated the IRCTC login user ID and
ticketing through IRCTC, who also hail/belongs from
Madubani District. It is a coincidence that creates a
strong suspicion of involvement of the Bank Manger in
connivance with Rahul Jha, who has been in custody
since 16.09.2016, suggesting that entire fraud about
transaction was carried out in connivance with the then
Bank Manger. The then Bank Manger passed on the
account information because he had the knowledge that
the bank account was not operated by the petitioner for
a long time. After retirement of the petitioner, the retiral
benefit amount was transferred into this account and the
petitioner had kept the amount for marriage of his two
daughters and a son is near future, so that the petitioner
never use the money and kept it for marriage purpose. It
is also averred in the reply to counter affidavit that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.11423 of 2015 dated10-01-2025
then Branch Manager, SBI, Hathua Branch, had already
destroyed, deleted or altered the information residing in
a computer resource thereby diminishing its value or
utility or affecting injuriously. The Bank officials/ Bank
shall be liable to pay damages by way of compensation
not exceeding one crore rupees to the person, so
affected as per section 43 of the information technology,
Act 2008. It is very much clear and can be detected
from the print out of the petitioner's account profile that
a wrong entry was made by the bank recording
Madhubani District in place of Gopalganj District,
which is not given by the petitioner. Furthermore, the
petitioner had never kept a landline phone nor provided
a landline number to the S.B.I. Branch, Hathua.
However, the landline number was mentioned in the
account profile of petitioner which also creates further
suspicion on the part of the then branch manager who
alleged to have manipulated the account's profile of the
petitioner since the account was very old and there was
a long gap between the transaction by the petitioner.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11423 of 2015 dated10-01-2025
The bank officials managed to destroy the identity,
misuse the account profile and fraudulently conducted
illegal transactions by disclosing the secrecy of the
petitioner account.
9. Again, a counter affidavit was filed on
behalf of the Bank. It is submitted in the counter
affidavit that the Writ application is not maintainable,
because an alternative remedy is available under the
Information Act, 2000; Section 43-A deals with
compensation for the failure to protect the data. It is
further submitted that under section 46 (1), the Central
Government issued a Notification No. GSR 240 (E)
dated 25.3.2003, wherein the Secretary of the
Department of Information Technology of each state
appoint an adjudicating authority, for the purpose of the
information Technology Act, 2000. In view of section
57 of the Act, there is a provision for an Appellate
Tribunal, and anyone can approach the Tribunal against
the order of adjudicating authority, for which the
Government of India issued a notification dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.11423 of 2015 dated10-01-2025
14.7.2017. It is further stated that against the order
Appellate Tribunal, there is provision of Appeal before
the High Court under section 62 of the Act.
10. Heard the Learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as the respondents and perused the
record.
11. The Learned counsel for the respondent
Bank placed reliance on paragraph no. 18 of a
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR
1976 Supreme Court 386 (D.L.F. Housing
Construction (P) Ltd. V. Delhi Municipal
Corporation and others) in which their Lordships have
held as follows:
"18. In our opinion, in a case
where the basic facts are disputed, and
complicated questions of law and fact
depending on evidence are involved the
Writ court is not the proper forum for
seeking relief. The right course of the
High Court to follow was to dismiss the
Patna High Court CWJC No.11423 of 2015 dated10-01-2025
Writ petition on this preliminary ground,
without entering upon the merits of the
case. In the absence of firm and adequate
factual foundation, it was hazardous to
embark upon a determination of the points
involved. On this short ground while
setting aside the findings of the High
Court, we would dismiss both the Writ
petition and the appeal with costs. The
appellants may if so advised, seek their
remedy by a regular suit. "
12. This Court is of the considered view
that disputed and complicated questions of law and fact,
depending on evidence cannot be decided in Writ Court.
It is a matter of fact, which has to be decided by the
original jurisdiction, not by the High Court.
13. The petitioner is at liberty to move /
chose appropriate forum for the redressal of his
grievance.
14. In result, the Writ petition is dismissed.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11423 of 2015 dated10-01-2025
15. Interlocutory Application(s), if any,
shall stand disposed of.
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
Spd/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 07.02.2025
Transmission Date
