Back
2025 Supreme(Pat) 267
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
Surendra Nath Pandey, son of Late Mahadeo Pandey - Petitioner
Versus
The State Bank Of India, through its Chairperson and Ors. – Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11423 of 2015
Decided On : 10-01-2025
For the Petitioner: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
Writ jurisdiction is not suitable for resolving disputed factual matters; appropriate remedies should be sought in regular civil courts.
Headnote:(A) Information Technology Act, 2000 - Section 43 and Section 46(1) - Writ petition filed for mandamus directing the Bank to credit an unauthorized withdrawal of Rs. 11,28,283/- - Petitioner’s savings account debited without authorization for transactions involving IRCTC - Disputed transactions require factual determination not appropriate for Writ jurisdiction. (Paras 1-15)
(B) Jurisdiction - High Court's inability to resolve complicated factual disputes in writ petitions, recommending alternative remedies in regular civil courts. (Paras 10-12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner discovered unauthorized withdrawals from his savings account credited to the account of IRCTC, which he hadn’t authorized. Efforts to address this complaint with the bank proved unhelpful.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled the matter requires a factual determination unsuitable for Writ jurisdiction.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the case involved complicated questions of law and fact that could not be adjudicated in a Writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that Writ jurisdiction is inappropriate for resolving disputed and complex factual issues that need original jurisdiction examination.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's claim of unauthorized bank transactions. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. bank's defenses regarding transaction authorization. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. irctc's role and responsibilities in transactions. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. availability of alternative remedies under it act. (Para 9) |
| 5. writ court's limitations in resolving factual disputes. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. final dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 7. final ruling dismissing the petition. (Para 15) |
JUDGMENT :
(G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.)
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 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 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 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 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
