CHAND RAM BANJARE vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1


2026:CGHC:21342
NAFR
AVINASH
SHARMA
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally signed by
AVINASH
SHARMA
Date: 2026.05.12
10:48:10 +0530
WPC No. 2107 of 2021
1 - Chand Ram Banjare S/o Late Shri Saharata Ram Banjare Aged About 70 Years
Occupation Agriculture And Labour Resident Of Village Kosir, Tahsil Sarangarh District
Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Revenue Mahanadi
Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Collector Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District :
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
4 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Sarangarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.,
District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
5 - Manager Central Bank Of India, Central Office Ambikapur, District Sarguja
Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
6 - Branch Manager Central Bank Of India, Branch Office Kosir, Tahsil Sarangarh,
District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
7 - Labhoram S/o Buchchuram Aged About 35 Years Gram Panchayat Kosir, Tahsil
Sarangarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Shri Udho Ram Koshaley, Advocate.
For State/Res : Shri Shobhit Mishra, Dy GA.
For Respondent Nos.5
& 6
: Shri Anand Shukla, Advocate.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
07/05/2026

2
1. By way of this Writ Petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to the respondent
authorities to reopen the closed bank account of the petitioner bearing
No.3918989364 and permit the petitioner to withdraw the amount as sanctioned
in his favour under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (for short “ PMAY scheme ”).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a resident of
village Kosir, Tahsil Sarangarh District Raigarh C.G. and he is cultivator and
working as labour. The respondent authorities sanctioned amount of Rs.
1,20,000/- as first installment under scheme of PMAY for construction of house
of the petitioner, wherein the name of the petitioner is shows at Sr. no. 17 of the
list of sanctioned amount. Respondent no. 6 i.e. Branch Manager, Central Bank
of India Branch office Kosir, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
issued account no. 3918989364 for the petitioner. The petitioner was doing
transaction from the said account no. 3918989364 issued by Branch Manager,
Central Bank of India Branch office Kosir, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh
Chhattisgarh. However, account no. 3918989364 of the petitioner has been
closed due to unknown reasons, and hence the sanctioned amount of Rs.
1,20,000/- in favour of the petitioner has been withhold in the said account no.
3918989364 of the petitioner. The petitioner has wrote a letter and made several
requests to the concern respondent authorities for re-opening of closed account
no. 3918989364 so that the petitioner can withdraw the his first installment of
sanctioned amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- for construction of house for living of his
family member, but the respondent authorities have not re-opened said account
No. 3918989364 of the petitioner. Thus the petitioner is seeking limited prayer
with a direction to the respondent authorities to re-open the closed account no.

3
3918989364 and withdraw the sanctioned amount sanctioned to him under the
PMAY scheme for construction of house for living of his family member.
3. Learned counsel for the Bank submits that on the basis of letter dated
05.10.2019 issued by Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Sarangarh,
the Bank has put the account of the petitioner on hold and as such, the
petitioner could not get the amount which has been deposited in his account.
4. The petitioner is a Below Poverty Line card holder which is evident from notices
issued to him by the Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited
Kosir, for payment of electricity bill worth Rs.5560/-.
5. The amount in question i.e. Rs.1,20,000/- has been sanctioned to the petitioner
under the PMAY scheme so that petitioner can construct a house for himself and
his family members. The said amount has also been deposited in the bank
account of the petitioner, however, since the account of the petitioner has been
put on hold by the Bank, the petitioner is unable to withdraw the said amount.
6. From the record, it does not appear that any such instructions as alleged by
counsel for the Bank has been passed by the CEO Janpad Panchayat,
Sarangarh , however, even if any such communication was made to the Bank, it
cannot be a ground to withhold the account of the petitioner. The Bank has not
filed any reply or any such document to show as to why bank account of the
petitioner was put in hold.
7. When a query was put to counsel for the Bank, he has not assigned any reasons
for holding the bank account of the petitioner and further, return has also not
been filed on behalf of the Bank in this case.
8. In the present case, there is not dispute that bank account number in question
belongs to the petitioner. Though everywhere in the petition, a different or wrong

4
bank account number has been mentioned, however, from the document filed
with the petition at page number 26, the correct bank account number of the
petitioner bearing No.3918989364 can be ascertained.
9. Looking to the facts situation of the case and in view of the submissions of the
parties, this Court is of the view that the action of the Bank in putting the bank
account of the petitioner bearing No.3918989364 on hold is not in accordance
with law, as in such circumstances, the petitioner is unable to the withdraw the
amount of Rs.1,20,000/- that has been sanctioned against him under the PMAY
scheme.
10. The concerned Bank is directed to lift the withholding of account bearing
No.3918989364 of the petitioner and the petitioner may be permitted to perform
transactions in relation to it.
11. The respondent Bank is further directed not to make any hindrance in the way of
petitioner getting the sanctioned amount of Rs.1,20,000/- under the PMAY
scheme and the petitioner shall also be entitled for interest on the said amount
as applicable.
12. With this observation/direction, the Writ Petition is allowed.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge

Avinash