DISTRICT : NORTH 24-PARGANAS

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

W.P.A. No. of 2024

IN THE MATTER OF :

An application under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India;

- And –

IN THE MATTER OF :

Jahanara Abedin, aged about 62

years

Wife of Late Joynal Abedin Sarkar

Vill-Hitanpur, PO-Gangadaspara

PS-Domkal, Murshidabad

West Bengal, PIN : 742303.

… Petitioner

- Versus –

1. The State of West Bengal,

Service through the Secretary

Department of Home Affairs, Nabanna

 2

325, Sarat Chandra Chatterjee Road

Shibpur, Howrah, PIN - 711101

2. The Banking Ombudsman

15, Netaji Subhas Road,

Fairley Place, BBD Bagh

Kolkata - 700001

3. The Reserve Bank of India

15, Netaji Subhas Road,

Fairley Place, BBD Bagh

Kolkata - 700001

4. The State Bank of India

Regional Office Samridhhi Bhawan,

1, Strand Road, BBD Bagh

Kolkata – 700001

5. The State Bank of India

Gangadaspara Branch, Jalangi Road

Joyrampur, Domkal, Murshidabad,

PIN- 742303

…Respondent(s)

To
 3

The Hon’ble T.S. Sivagnanam, Chief Justice and His Companion

Justices of the said Hon’ble Court.

The humble petition on behalf

of the petitioner above named:

Most Respectfully Sheweth :

1. That your petitioner states that she is peace loving and law abiding

citizen of India, having permanent address as indicated in the cause title

and has a locus standi to file this writ application before this Hon'ble

Court.

2. Your petitioner states that initially she had applied for loan

under the Kisan Credit Card scheme wherein the government provides a

2% interest subvention and a 3% prompt repayment incentive (PRI),

making the credit available at a subsidised rate of 7% per year for loans

upto Rupees 3 lakhs and which basically aims at providing adequate and

timely credit support from the banking system under a single window to

the farmer for their cultivation and other non-farm needs.

3. That your petitioner states that having looked at all the pros

and cons, your petitioner decided to apply for the loan which was credited

to the tune of ₹30,000 (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) vide Loan No.

0031478049464 in favour of Mrs. Jahanara Abedin on 06.10.2012 and at

an exorbitant rate of interest of 11.90% per annum which was strangely

 4

beyond the one as prescribed under the Kisan Credit Card Scheme, i.e.

7% per annum for loans upto ₹3 lakhs.

4. That your petitioner states however after such loan of ₹30,000

(Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) vide Loan No. 0031478049464 in favour

of Mrs. Jahanara Abedin on 06.10.2012 was disbursed, the bank refused

to categorise the loan under the KCC Scheme and treated it as personal

loan which is absolutely discretionary and utterly an arbitrary action

taken by the Bank Authorties, especially Respondent No. 5

5. Your petitioner states that apart from the loan disbursed, your

petitioner did not make any transactions. However, loan agents from the

bank visited her house, lured signature from her on different contexts

including citation of vague reasons like the increment of loan limit

annually which was partly true but the fact and in between such period,

several irregular transactions were made on 02.11.2015, 15.03.2016, and

24.01.2018 without the knowledge of the petitioner, thus taking undue

advantage of naivety and imprudency of the petitioner in the process.

Copy of the relevant bank statement on the aforementioned dates

annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P/1

6. That the petitioner states that on careful observation and

examination of the provided documentation revealed subtantial material

inaccuracies in the calculation of interest charges as levied against this

account throughout its operational period as no such breakdown was

 5

made to reflect in the bank statements and such irregularities are not

confined to isolated instances but rather appear to be systemic in nature.

7. Your petitioner states that of particular concerns are the entries

recorded for 24.07.2024, which included a debit of ₹48,954 as interest on

a date when the loan was closed. This charge is surprising to the petitioner

and raises significant questions regarding its legitimacy, as it contradicts

the acceptable final amount of ₹63,764.13. Subsequently, the additional

charges levied thereafter are deemed unethical, particularly given the

petitioner’s status as a poor farmer.

8. Your petitioner states that during the intervening period, the

petitioner's husband (now deceased) was diagnosed with terminal

stomach cancer but despite the grim prognosis, the petitioner remained

steadfast in her determination to explore every possible avenue for his

treatment and decided to sell her husband's property, a last resort

measure aimed at securing the necessary funds for his immediate medical

care.

Copy of medical certificate of the petitioner's husband annexed

herewith and marked as Annexure P/2

9. Your petitioner states that the petitioner was compelled to execute

the sale of her property in favor of the buyer, a decision made under

circumstances that left her with no viable alternative. Due to pressing

financial obligations and in a desperate hope to save her husband's life,

the petitioner was placed in a precarious situation, necessitating the

 6

liquidation of her assets. As a result, she was forced to give up on the

ownership of her property, though reluctantly undertaken, deemed

essential to mitigate her financial distress.

Copy of the sale deed of property, dated 05.07.2024 annexed

herewith and marked as Annexure P/3

10. Your petitioner submits that in an unforeseen turn of events, a

substantial lump sum amount of ₹1,15,700 was deducted which included

a bizarre amount of interest to the tune of ₹48,954 as interest from the

petitioner's account on 24.07.2024 and which was made without any prior

notice, leaving the petitioner unaware of the reason behind such a

significant withdrawal and this deduction occurred immediately after the

petitioner's account was credited with the net proceeds from the sale of

the aforementioned property due to which the petitioner was thus caught

off guard.

Copy of the relevant bank statement dated 24.07.2024 annexed

herewith and marked as Annexure P/4

11. Your petitioner states that due to inadequacy of funds and lack

of effective treatment, the petitioner's husband succumbed to death on

11.10.2024 due to stomach cancer and all her efforts went up in smoke,

but notwithstanding which the bank authorities turned a stoic stance to

the miserable and unfortunate condition of the petitioner.

Copy of the death certificate of the petitioner's husband annexed

herewith and marked as Annexure P/5

 7

12. Your petitioner states that it is also pertinent to note here that

a settlement was conducted by bank personnel at Gangadaspara Branch

for an amount of Rs. 50,000; however, no documentation was provided

from the bank authorities, and the petitioner was instructed only to

deposit the sum and contact the bank, however, on depositing the funds,

the bank unlawfully deducted ₹1,15,700 which included interest and

other penal charges without providing any explanatory breakdown of such

amount.

13. Your petitioner states that being dejected because of such sudden

action by the bank authorities, when the petitioner approached the SBI

Gangadaspara branch, i.e. Respondent No. 5, they refused to help the

petitioner and directed her to visit the SBI Juginda Branch as the

operations were relocated to Juginda Branch because of a fire breakout

incident at the Gangadaspara Branch, but the petitioner got no further

help as they cited that the matter pertained to another bank.

14. Your petitioner states that finding no alternative thereafter, an

legal notice was sent to the SBI Regional Branch Office, ie. Respondent

No. 4 wherein a very succinct reply was made directing the petitioner to

approach the concerned branch for any kind of relief and since then your

petitioner has been running from pillar to post for relief, which clearly goes

to show that such behaviour on the part of the respondent authorities

cannot be sustained by any stretch of imagination.

 8

Copy of the legal notice and the reply with respect to the legal notice

dated 24.10.2024 annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P/6 and

P/7 respectively

15. That your petitioner is currently living as an unfortunate widow

who lost her husband due to the lack of timely treatment owing to several

reasons including the lackadaisical stance by the respondent authorities,

especially the banks in resolving the issue which compounded her distress

all the more as she was already facing financial crunch at the first place

and having lost her husband, left her completely vulnerable.

16. That the petitioner submits that, since the Respondent authorities

chose to turn deaf ear to the petitioner's request and was pretty much

indifferent to your petitioner's plight and agony, the petitioner had no other

option but to bring the same to the notice of the Hon'ble High Court,

Calcutta, under Article 226 of the Constitution Of India.

17. That your petitioner states that due to her inability to take

necessary actions and in this frantic lookout for relief, she was ultimately

left dejected and therefore your petitioner prefers the writ application on

the following other:

GROUNDS

I. For that, the action of the respondent authorities smacks of

arbitrariness and can be termed as a disgrace. The banking

 9

system seems flawed here as no effort was made to address the

grievance of the petitioner despite running from pillar to post.

II. For that the respondent authorities despite being the statutory

authorities have acted indifferently to the plight of the petitioner

and also did not stick to the norms and regulations that are set

out according to the Kisan Credit Loan Scheme.

III. For that the actions and inactions and denial of the

respondents are against the principle of natural justice and other

constitutional provisions including right to get the relief and

cannot be sustained by any stretch of imagination.

IV. For that the non actions/ inactions of the respondents are

against the observations and obiter dicta of this Hon’ble High

Court and also the Hon’ble Apex Court.

V. For that the actions and inactions/ non actions of the

respondents are otherwise bad in law and liable to be set aside.

VI. For that the petitioner demanded justice severally before all

the concerned respondent authorities but the same was denied,

 10

as such, making any more demand of justice would be an empty

formality.

VII. For that there is no other suitable alternative legal remedy

open to the petitioner and the relied as prayed for, in this petition,

if granted, shall afford full and complete relief.

VIII. For that there is no delay or latches in preferring this writ

application.

IX. For that the respondents are public servants and should
act in accordance with law.

X. For that the petitioner is suffering from irreparable loss and

injury because of the denial from the side of the respondent

authorities for non paying the amounts and status as claimed by

the petitioner, and therefore, it is very urgent to move this writ

application before this Hon’ble Court.

XI. For that the petitioner craves leave to correct/ amend un-

willful and bonafide mistake, if any.

 11

XII. For that there is no reasonable ground as to why necessary

and requisite relief shall not be granted.

18. That, in the above fact and circumstances any demand of justice

will be an idle and empty formality and the same may be dispensed

with.

19. That no application has been filed by the petitioner on the self

same facts and / or cause of action before any court of law.

20. That the petitioner states that, unless orders are passed as

prayed for, your petitioner will suffer irreparable loss, injury and

prejudice.

21. That the balance of convenience and for inconvenience is entirely

in favor of the petitioner and against the private respondents.

22. That the petitioner has no alternative, effective and efficacious

remedy, but to move before the Hon'ble court under its extra ordinary

jurisdiction and the prayers made herein if granted will give your

petitioner full and complete relief.

23. This application is made bonafide and for the ends of justice.
 12

In the premises aforesaid, your

petitioner most humbly and

respectfully prays that your Lordship

would graciously be pleased to pass

the following order and/ or orders:-

A) Dispense with Rule 26 of the Writ

Rules;

B) Issue a writ of or in the nature of

Mandamus commanding the

respondents, more specifically the

respondents nos. 4 and 5 to address

the grievance the petitioner in an

earliest possible measure and an

immediate commencement of a

thorough and impartial investigation

into all aspects of the interest

calculations, other charges levied

upon this account.

C) Issue a writ of or in the nature of

Certiorari directing the respondents,

specifically respondent nos. 4 and 5 to

immediately and/ or forthwith certify

and transmit the records pertaining to

 13

the instant case before this Hon'ble

court, so that conscionable justice

may therein be administered by

quashing any decision arrived at by

the respondents authorities in

withdrawing and/ or not providing

relief for the sake of the petitioner;

D) Issue Rule NISI in terms of prayers

(B) and (C) as above, and to make the

Rule absolute if no cause and/ or

insufficient cause is shown in reply.

E)Pass any order as to costs;

F) Pass any further order or orders,

direction or directions as your

Lordship may deem fit and proper in

the interest of justice, equity and good

conscience.

And for this act of kindness, your petitioner as in duty bound, shall

ever pray.
 14

AFFIDAVIT

I, Jahanara Abedin, aged about 62 years, Wife of Late Joynal Abedin

Sarkar, Resident of Vill-Hitanpur, P.O.-Gangadaspara, P.S.-Domkal,

Murshidabad, West Bengal, PIN : 742303, by faith- Muslim, by

occupation- housewife,, do hereby solemnly affirm and say as follows:-

1. That I am the Petitioner of the instant case as such I am well

acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.

 15

2. That the statements made in paragraphs 1 to 20 of the foregoing

petition are true to my knowledge those made in paragraphs to are

my humble submissions before the Hon’ble Court.

Prepared in my office The deponent is known to me

Advocate Clerk to Mr.

En. No. F/1412/1346 of 1995

Solemnly affirmed before me on this …….day of December 2024.

I certify that the annexure(s) are legible.

Advocate

COMMISSIONER

DISTRICT : NORTH 24-PARGANAS

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

W.P.A No. of 2024

In the matter of :

Subject matter relating to :

West Bengal Police Act, 1861

Group - IX Head NIL

Under the Classification List.

 16

Cause Title

Jahanara Abedin

… Petitioner

- Versus -

State of West Bengal and others

… Respondents

HUSEN MUSTAFI,
Advocate
En. No. F/38/29 of 2016
Bar Association, Room No.18,
High Court, Calcutta
Mob. No. 9735168333
Email: husenmustafi@[Link]

DISTRICT : NORTH 24-PARGANAS

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

W.P.A. No. of 2024

IN THE MATTER OF :

An application under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India;

AND

IN THE MATTER OF :

Jahanara Abedin

… Petitioner
 17

- Versus -

State of West Bengal and others

.… Respondents

INDEX

[Link] Particulars of Documents Annexure Pages

1. Writ Application along with the 1 to ….

Affidavit
2. Copy of the relevant bank statement P/1

on 02.11.2015, 15.03.2016, and

24.01.2018

3. Copy of medical certificate of the P/2

petitioner's husband

4. Copy of the sale deed of property, P/3

dated 05.07.2024

5. Copy of the relevant bank statement P/4

dated 24.07.2024

6. Copy of the death certificate of the P/5

petitioner's husband

7. Copy of the legal notice and the reply P/6

with respect to the legal notice dated &

P/7
24.10.2024
 18

POINTS OF LAW

1) Whether the Respondent concerned authorities being public

servants can deny their Mandatory and statutory duties and obligations

and such denial is at all justified.

2) Whether the actions and inactions/non-actions of the

respondents authorities being violative of principle of natural justice

and other Constitutional provisions including getting fair and proper

justice.

3) Whether the actions and inactions/ non-actions of the

respondents causing/ creating failure or are contradictory to the duties

and obligations.
 19

4) Whether the actions and inactions/non-actions of the

respondents are otherwise bad in law.

DISTRICT : NORTH 24-PARGANAS

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
W.P.A. No. of 2024

In the matter of :
An Application under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India

And

In the matter of

Jahanara Abedin
… Petitioner
- Versus -
State of West Bengal and others
… Respondents

PETITION
 20

HUSEN MUSTAFI,
Advocate
En. No. F/38/29 of 2016
Bar Association, Room No.18,
High Court, Calcutta
Mob. No. 9735168333
Email: husenmustafi@[Link]

List of Dates

06.10.2012 Loan disbursed in favour of the petitioner

11.10.2024 Death of husband of the petitioner

24.07.2024 Interest of ₹48,954 deducted against the loan

24.07.2024 Loan closed

Synopsis

The petitioner is currently living as an unfortunate widow who lost her

husband due to the lack of timely treatment owing to several reasons

 21

including the lackadaisical stance by the respondent authorities and

also taking undue advantage of the petitioner's unawareness. However,

there was no substantial action taken by the concerned authorities

despite running from pillar to post and hence, having no other

alternative the petitioner is preferring this writ application.