M. Sivasankar Nayak V. The Union of India and The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and The State Bank of India

WP/44714/2018

AI Insights

The case involves M. Sivasankar Nayak, an Income Tax Officer, who filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Union of India, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and the State Bank of India. The petition sought a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the CBI in not de-freezing the petitioner's savings bank account as illegal and arbitrary, thus violating his constitutional rights. The petitioner also sought the release of the funds in his account without reference to a letter from the CBI. However, during the hearing, the petitioner's counsel declared the matter infructuous, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 697440 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 14-11-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: P RAO; P S P KUMAR; M REDDY
• Assessee Lawyers: CH RAMAN
• Keywords: De-freezing of Bank Account; Violation of Constitutional Rights; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 151 CPC

Judgement Text

"0 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARA (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT VENKATESW^LU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 44714 OF 2018 -o cr ii' Z) V' THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE Between: M. Sivasankar Nayak, S/o. Hanuman Naik, Aged about 45 Years, Occ- Income Tax Officer R/o. Flat 501, 5th Floor, Sukshetra Beach Front Apartment, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam District. ^ ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Union of India, rep. by Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. 2. The Central Beureu of Investigation CBI, rep by Superintendent of Police CBI, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 3. The State Bank of India, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Sithammadhara Branch, Visakhapatnam. tH ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in not deefreezing the Petitioner Saving Banka A/c.No. 30015253736 laying with the 3rd Respondent is may illegal and arbitrary and violative of rights guaranteed by constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent without reference to the Letter of 2nd Respondent to release amount of the Petitioner laying in his State Bank of India A/c. No. 30015253736. 3rd ' * i vV lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 3rd Respondent to release amount of the Petitioners Saving Bank A/c.No.30015253736, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the PetitionenSRICH VENKATRAMAN Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI P POONA RAO( DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA) Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI P S P SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI M SRIKANTH REDDY i; The Court made the following: ORDER % J APHC010922752018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 44714/2018 Between: M. Sivasankar Nayak ...PETITIONER ‘ AND I ...RESPONDENT(S) The Union Of India and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.CH VENKAT RAMAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA 2,P S P SURESH KUMAR / The Court Made the Following Order. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “...to issue writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in not deefreezing the Petitioner Saving Banka A/c No 30015253736 laying with the 3rd Respondent is illegal and arbitrary and violative of rights guaranteed by constitution of India and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent without reference to the Letter of 2nd Respondent to release amount of the Petitioner laying in his State Bank of India A/c No 30015253736 and pass orders...” Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri C.H.Venkat 2. Raman, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter has become infructuous and no further orders are necessary in this Writ Petition. i 2 Recording the said, submissions, the Writ Petition is dismissed as 3. infructuous. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M PRABHAKAR RAO assistant SECTION OFFICER //true copy// To, VENKAT RAMAN, Advocate lOPUCl SOLICITOR GENERAL OF 1. OneCCto SRI. CH . POONA RAO, (DE^TY 2. One CC to SRI. P INDIA), Advocate [OPUC] KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC] SRI P.S.P. SURESH :SRIKANTH RED^ Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to 4. One CC to SRL M 5. Three C.D.Copies nm > HIGH COURT DATED;14/11/2024 ORDER WP.No.44714 of 2018 DISMISING THE WP AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS "