1. This petition is directed against the action of the respondents State Bank of India (SBI) in freezing/seizing bank account of the petitioner.

Brief facts necessary for adjudication are as under:-

2. Petitioner is a teacher and is posted in Government Primary School, Vijaypur, District Sheopur (MP). The petitioner’s monthly salary and allowances are regularly credited by the office of the District Education Officer, Sheopur in his saving account No. 53040600892 mainatained by the respondent No. 2. Salary is only means of livelihood for the petitioner and his family. The petitioner has three daughters who are studying in higher classes of different educational institutions. It is the case of the petitioner that when he went to the Bank/respondent No. 2 for taking payment of salary for the month of July, 2011 from said saving account, he was informed that said account is freezed by the respondent No. 2 on 24.6.2011. It is stated that the petitioner’s wife is suffering from serious ailment and petitioner requires money for her treatment. MRI reports of petitioner’s wife is filed as Annexure-P/3. In nutshell, the petitioner submits that his entire salary is deposited in the aforesaid saving acount and if the said account is seized, it results into depriving him from the fruits of salary and leads him to starvation. He submits that in absence of salary from July, 2011, the petitioner is facing great financial hardship. It is difficult for him to run the cart of his family, provide adequate medical facility to ailing wife and pay fees and provide other expenses to his daughters. He submits that aforesaid action of the respondents Bank is without any authority of law and therefore, a mandamus be issued against the respondents.

3. In turn, Mr. M.P. Agarwal, learned counsel for the Bank submits that the petition is not maintainable. Disputed questions of fact are invoived which can be determined by the civil Court. It is stated that the petitioner’s parents Smt. Savitri Devi Dhakad (mother) and Shri Khubiram Dhakad (father) had jointly obtained term loan for purchasing tractor on 15.4.1999 from the respondent No. 3 Bank. The said loan account of petitioner’s parents became irregular. Later-on, the petitioner’s father expired but the petitioner did not pay any heed to regularize the loan account. For this reason, the petitioner’s load account was put on hold. By placing reliance on Annexure-R/1 it is stated that the petitioner was informed to repay the said loan and therefore, his loan account was freezed. It is further argued by Mr. Agarwal that agreement for hypothecation shows that borrower had given consent for recovery of loan as public money and therefore, it can be recovered from the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner’s parents signed the said agreement for hypothecation, which contains a clause that in the event loan is not repaid, it can be recovered from the heirs. He submits that the petitioner on the one hand wants to enjoy the property being legal representative and on the other hand wants to avoid repayment of loan liability. He submits that the petitioner being heir cannot avoid the said payment and respondents have not erred in freezing the said account. He relied on the judgment of Allahabad High Court in Radhika Devi and another v. Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda and others, reported in II (1993) BC 326; Delhi High Cout in State of India v. M/s Samneel Engineering Company and Ors., reported in (1997) BC 655 and Jharkhand High Court in Hindustan Malleables and Forgings Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr., reported in III (2004) BC 417 (DB).

4. Mr. VK Bhardwaj, was requested to assist the Court in this matter as Amicus curie. Accordingly, I had advantage of hearing Mr. Bhardwaj, learned senior counsel with Shri Arvind Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Bhardwaj, also addressed the Court on the aforesaid issue.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record