ORDER :

U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.

1. The petitioner seeks mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to operate her bank account bearing No. 153101000028695 maintained with 1st respondent Bank without assigning any reason, without issuing any prior notice as illegal, arbitrary and for a consequential direction to 1st respondent bank to permit her to operate her bank account and pass suitable order as this Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

2. The case of the petitioner is that her husband Sri Repudi Vijaya Kumar while working as Lecturer in Andhra Loyola College, Vijayawada died on 15.04.2020 due to COVID-19 leaving behind the petitioner as her legal heir entitled to receive his death benefits. Her son Thomas and two married daughters are also his legal heirs.

On submission of the required documents, the Office of Accountant General (A & E), Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati fixed the monthly family pension payable to the petitioner at Rs. 73,950/- per month for seven years from 16.04.2020 to 15.04.2027 and thereafter at Rs. 44,370/- from 16.04.2027 onwards and issued a letter dated 12.11.2020. The District Treasury, Krishna District at Machilipatnam vide memo dated __.01.2021 sanctioned Gratuity of Rs. 6 lakhs each to the petitioner and her son and pension of Rs. 73,950/- and directed the Sub-Treasury Officer, ATO, Vijayawada (East) to arrange the payment. The petitioner was allotted CMFS ID No. 14438505 under Comprehensive Financial Management System. The petitioner was instructed to open a bank account to credit her pension amount and accordingly, the petitioner opened SB Account with 1st respondent Bank on 21.05.2020. It is a self-operated account. On the date of opening of the account, an amount of Rs. 1,500/- was deposited by her and thereafter, on 03.02.2021 an amount of Rs. 6,83,414/- was credited to her account. On 01.03.2021 an amount of Rs. 75,663/- was credited and thereby, the balance stood to the credit of her account was Rs. 7,60,497.90 ps as on 01.03.2021. While so, 1st respondent freezed her account and did not allow the petitioner to operate her account. The respondents have no right over the amounts lying in her account. When enquired by the petitioner, the Bank Manager of 1st respondent informed that there was an outstanding loan obtained by her deceased husband from the 2nd respondent and hence, 1st respondent was not allowing her to operate her account. Then the petitioner approached the 3rd respondent college and obtained copies of the correspondence between the respondents 1 to 3 and also a letter said to have been signed and issued by her husband on 22.11.2019 as a borrower. As seen from those letters, it appears, her husband obtained loan of Rs. 5.00 lakhs on 22.11.2019 from 2nd respondent Bank with an agreement to pay it in 60 equal monthly instalments @ Rs. 11,000/- and that there was a due of Rs. 5,11,675/- and at the time of obtaining loan her husband authorised the 3rd respondent to pay the loan due from the terminal benefits like provident fund, gratuity etc. to 2nd respondent Bank. Even assuming that such a letter was really addressed by him, still 2nd respondent cannot insist the 3rd respondent to pay loan from the terminal benefits like pension, provident fund, gratuity etc. and more so 2nd respondent cannot instruct 1st respondent to freeze the bank account of the petitioner. The remedy available to the 2nd respondent is only to approach the competent civil court for recovery of the borrowed amount, if any. However, so far no suit has been filed and order was obtained by 2nd respondent from any competent court. The further case of the petitioner is that as can be seen from the letter dated 28.01.2021 addressed by 4th respondent to 3rd respondent college, 1st respondent asked to create a lien and arrange the payments to 1st respondent Bank on the grou