Anil Singh Rana And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

By means of the instant petition, the petitioners claim that the money which they have deposited with the respondent no.2, Jan Shakti Multi State Multi-Purpose Cooperative Society Limited (“the Society”) may be returned to them. Directions have also been sought that to the respondent nos.4 to 7 Banks to de-freeze the bank accounts of respondent nos.2 and 3.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the amount that has been deposited by the petitioners with the Society has not been returned to them by the Society; the accounts of the Society have been freezed, therefore, the money that has been deposited by the petitioners may be returned to them; the bank accounts of the society may be de-freezed.

Learned counsel appearing for the Banks would submit that similar petitions have also been disposed of by this Court on the ground of alternate remedy. He would refer to the judgments dated 11.01.2023, passed in WPMS No.2924 of 2022 and WPMS No.2794 of 2021, which are Annexure Nos.1 and 2 to the writ petition respectively.

Section 9 of the Uttarakhand Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 2005 (“the Act”) empowers the designated court with regard to the assessment and payment of the depositors. The petitioners may very well approach the appropriate authority under the Act.

The petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy to ventilate their grievance under Section 9 of the Act. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the instant petition may not be entertained. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

The petition is dismissed in limine.