Allahabad High Court
NEERAJ GARGversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that it will not directly order de‑freezing of the account but directed the petitioner to apply to the bank, which must decide the request within two weeks.
Summary
Neeraj Garg filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a mandamus directing Indian Overseas Bank to de‑freeze his account (No. 153202000001017) after it was frozen on a complaint from an investigating agency about doubtful transactions. The bank argued that the freeze was justified pending investigation. The Court examined whether it could directly order de‑freezing and held that it would not issue such a mandamus. Instead, the Court directed the petitioner to apply to the bank for de‑freezing and instructed the bank to decide the request within two weeks, referring to the precedent in Ashish Rawat v. Union of India. The petition was therefore disposed with this procedural direction.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ court can issue a mandamus directing a bank to de‑freeze an account frozen on suspicion of doubtful transactions.
- Whether the freeze of the account is justified pending investigation by an agency.
- Whether the petition under Article 226 is maintainable for relief against the bank’s action.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226
Subjects
- mandamus
- account freeze
- banking
- investigating agency
- Article 226
- writ petition
- procedural direction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 36238 of 2026
Neeraj Garg
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sandeep Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Jainendra Kumar Mishra
Court No. - 1
HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.
1. Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri Jainendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the
respondent- bank and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution,
petitioner has prayed for a direction in the nature of mandamus to
command the respondent concerned to de-freeze the account of the
petitioner being No.- 153202000001017 maintained with Indian Overseas
Bank, Branch Tejgarhi, District - Meerut.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the account has
been freezed primarily on a complaint received from the Investigating
Agency for there being doubtful transactions in his account.
4. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of with a
direction to the petitioner to apply before the concerned respondent for
de-freezing of the account and if he does so, the concerned respondent
shall decide the same within a further period of two weeks from the date
of receipt of a certified copy of this order, in the light of the judgment of
this Court in Ashish Rawat v. Union of India and 6 others, passed in
WRIC No. 36238 of 2026
2
Writ-C No. 1489 of 2026, decided on 08.04.2026.
(Siddharth Nandan,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.)
September 17, 2026
Atmesh
Digitally signed by :-
ATMESH KESARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…