The appellant may seek appropriate orders from the Single Judge following new developments regarding the bank account.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

This writ appeal is filed under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958, by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.40004 of 2025, being aggrieved by the order dated 30.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A.No.1 of 2026, whereby that interlocutory application was dismissed holding that the appellant- petitioner cannot be permitted to withdraw the writ petition without impleading the Local Station House Officer.

2. The appellant filed W.P.(C)No.40004 of 2025 under Article

226 of the Constitution of India , seeking the following reliefs;

“A. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 3^rd Respondent to unfreeze the Petitioner’s bank account bearing Account No. 110024382826 with Respondent Canara Bank, Parakkadavu Branch ;

B. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directing the 3^rd Respondent to remove the lien mark on the Petitioner’s account and release the amounts along with interest at the prevailing bank rate from the date of such illegal freezing till the date of actual release;

C. Declare that the action of the Respondents in freezing the Petitioner’s account without due process and without notice is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India ”

3. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the appellant, a law-abiding citizen and a permanent resident, maintains a personal savings bank account with the respondent Canara Bank, Parakkadavu Branch, which he solely relies upon for his livelihood, family expenses, and professional transactions. Without prior notice, show cause, or legal justification, the respondent bank unilaterally froze his account and marked a lien on the funds therein, amounting to an unknown dispute amount. Despite multiple requests and oral representations for the unfreezing of his account, the appellant received no response or explanation. He was only informed in September, 2025 that the account had been frozen based on a cybercrime complaint filed, and no other details were provided. Crucially, no legal procedures under applicable criminal law or due process were followed, and the appellant was not made a party to any criminal proceedings. This arbitrary action has caused significant financial hardship, impairing his ability to meet essential expenses and violating his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The account, used exclusively for personal and essential transactions, was frozen without judicial authorisation or statutory authority, contravening established legal principles that restrict banks from freezing accounts beyond the amount specified in police requisitions. Contending the action of the respondent bank as unlawful, disproportionate, and violated his constitutional rights, the appellant filed the writ petition.

4. According to the appellant, after the filing of the writ petition, the 4^th respondent directly contacted the appellant and sought certain documents and clarifications from him. The appellant fully cooperated with the investigation, and upon being satisfied, the 4^th respondent issued a No Objection Certificate dated 08.12.2025, directing the 3^rd respondent Bank to lift the lien and permit unrestricted operation of the appellant’s account. In pursuance to the said No Objection Certificate issued by the 4^th respondent, the 3^rd respondent removed the lien and restored full operational right over the account. Therefore, on 12.01.2026, when the writ petition came up for consideration, the appellant brought these developments to the notice of the learned Single Judge. Howe