GAHC010089042025 2025:GAU-AS:16900

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/2288/2025

M/S NEPALI CUTTING MEAT SHOP

REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR ISRAFIL ALI, 28 YEARS, R/O MALAHU NO 2 PS

BHURAGAON MORIGAON, ASSAM 782121

VERSUS

BANK OF MAHARASHTRA AND 4 OTHERS

HEAD OFFICE, LOKMANGAL, 1501, SHIVAJINAGAR, PUNE 411005

2:BANK OF MAHARASHTRA ZONAL OFFICE

GUWAHATI ZONE 1ST FLOOR DWARAKA CENTRE LACHIT NAGAR SANI RAM BORA PATH BORA SERVICE ULUBARI G S ROAD KAMRUP METRO

GUWAHATI 7 ASSAM

3:THE BRANCH MANAGER

BANK OF MAHARASHTRA MALIGAON BRANCH GUWAHATI DIST

KAMRUP METRO ASSAM PIN 781011

4:THE UNION OF INDIA

REP BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRYH OF HOME AFFAIRS MHA NRTH

BLOCK GOVT OF INDIA NEW DELHI 110001

5:INDIAN CYBER CRIME

COORDINATION CENTRE I4C 5TH FLOOR NDCC II BUILDING JAI SINGH

ROAD NEW DELHI 11000

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S MITRA, MR S.MITRA,MR A K BORO,MR. R. RAMEEZ

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MS S DEY(R-1 TO 3),MR. K K NANDI (R-1 TO 3)

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI Advocate for the petitioner : Shri Shri S. Mitra, Advocate.

Advocate for the respondents : Shri K.K. Nandi, Advocate, Bank of Maharashtra &

Ms. R Devi, C.G.C.

Date on which judgment is : 08.12.2025 Reserved.

Date of pronouncement of : 08.12.2025.

Judgment.

Whether the pronouncement : NA.

is of the operative part of the judgment?

Whether the full judgment : Yes.

has been pronounced?

JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral)

Heard Shri S Mitra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri KK Nandi, learned counsel appearing for the Bank of Maharashtra as well as Ms. R Devi, learned CGC.

2. Considering the facts and circumstances involved and also as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.

3. As per the facts projected, the petitioner is a micro enterprise and is engaged in selling of meat at its place of business at Maligaon, Guwahati. In connection with the said business, the petitioner maintains a current bank account, being Account No. 60509775940 with the respondent-Bank in its Maligaon Branch which is under operation since October, 2024. It is averred that there is a credit of more than Rs. 12 lakhs. However, since January, 2025, debit transactions were stopped and on an enquiry, the petitioner was informed that the said account was frozen upon a complaint received from the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (NCCRP). The petitioner had submitted a representation followed by a complaint to the Banking Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India which was rejected vide an email dated

28.03.2025.

4. Assailing the said action, Shri Mitra, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is running a legal business and there is no fraudulent transaction of any nature related to the aforesaid bank account. He has submitted that the action has been taken without any notice and information and has caused immense prejudice to the petitioner. He has submitted that from the affidavit filed by the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3, it transpires that an amount of Rs.17,040/- appears to be a part of a fraudulent transaction involving the aforesaid current account of the petitioner. In this regard, he has submitted that in similarly situated matters, there has been direction for keeping in lien the disputed amounts and allowing the incumbents to run their respective bank accounts. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has relied upon the following case laws:

i) WP No. 25631/2024 (Mohammed Saifullah Vs. Reserve Bank of India & Ors.) [The High Court of Judicature at Madras];

ii) WP(C)/17905/2024 & CM Appl./2640/2025 (Neelkanth Pharma Logistics Pvt. Ltd.

Vs. Union of India Anr.) [The High Court of Delhi at New Delhi] &

iii) Crl. Writ Pettition No. 321/2025 (Mr. Kartik Yogeswar Chatur Vs. Union of India &

Ors.) [The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur].

5. In the case of Mohammed Saifullah (supra), the Hon’ble Madras High Court ha