Bank Of Maharashtra vs Smt. Anjali Ahmed Dwarika Prasad ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3282 Raj/2

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 174/2021

1.        Bank   Of   Maharashtra,           Through         Its     Chairman        And
          Managing Director, Head Office Lokmangal, 1501, Shivaji
          Nagar Pune 5 Maharashtra
2.        Assistant General Manager (Hrm), Bank Of Maharashtra
          Head Office Lokmangal, 1501, Shivaji Nagar Pune 5
          Maharashtra
3.        Zonal Manager, Bank Of Maharashtra, 6th Floor, Fortune
          Heights, Ahinsa Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj)
                                                                          ----Appellants
                                     Versus
Smt. Anjali Ahmed Dwarika Prasad W/o Shri Waseem Ahmed,
Aged About 32 Years, R/o D-32 Ballabh Bari, Gumanpura Kota
(Raj) Presently Bank Of Maharashtra Jhotwara Branch Jaipur
                                                                      ----Respondent

For Appellant(s)           :     Mr. Ravi Kant Sharma
                                 Mr. Himanshu Jain
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta



                   HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR SHARMA

                                  Judgment

29/07/2021

1. This Special Appeal (Writ) has been preferred against the

order dated 02.02.2021 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.11210/2019, titled as Smt. Anjali Ahmed Dwarika vs. Bank of

Maharashtra And Ors., whereby the Writ petition filed by the

respondent herein has been disposed of by making the interim

order absolute on the statement of counsel for the appellant- Bank

to decide and sympathetically consider the representation of the

respondent herein in light of the policy.

(2 of 2) [SAW-174/2021]

2. Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the

material made available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the

appellant- Bank has time and again shown his sympathy towards

the respondent but the appellant- Bank is bound to transfer the

respondent in light of the statutory provisions and accordingly, the

representation submitted by the respondent has been rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that on the

submissions made on behalf of the appellant- Bank, the Writ

petition was disposed of without going into merits. No ground has

been made out to interfere in the impugned order. The appeal

deserves to be dismissed.

5. On hearing learned counsel for both the sides, we find that

the Writ petition filed by the respondent herein has not been

disposed of on merits, therefore, without expressing any opinion

on merits the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated

02.02.2021 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to

Hon'ble Single Judge with the request to dispose of the matter on

merits at an early date preferably within three months. In the

interest of justice, interim order passed in the matter shall remain

operative till disposal of the original Writ petition.

(SATISH KUMAR SHARMA),J (INDRAJIT MAHANTY),CJ

Simple Kumawat/104

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)