SRIMANENI VIDYA SAGAR vs STATE BANK OF INDIA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56767
WP No. 7807 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010184022025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 9 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO.7807 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRIRAMANENI VIDYA SAGAR
S/O S.R. SUBBA NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.2422,
TH
SRIRAMANENI, 8 MAIN,
BSK II STAGE,
BANGALORE – 560070.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. AJAY KADKOL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BANK OF INDIA,
ST MARK’S ROAD,
SHANTHALA NAGAR,
ASHOK NAGAR,
BENGALURU – 560001.
2. CHIEF MANAGER,
STATE BANK OF INDIA,
ST MARK’S ROAD,
SHANTALA NAGARA,
ASHOK NAGAR,
BENGALURU – 560001.
3. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
36, BELLARY ROAD,
KGH LAYOUT, GANGANAGAR,
BENGALURU 560032.
Digitally signed by
MAHALAKSHMI B M
Location: High Court
of Karnataka
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56767
WP No. 7807 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010184022025
4. M/S. RAJARAJESHWARE BUILDDCON PVT. LTD.,
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS
RAJARAJESHWARI BUILDCON PVT. LTD.),
A COMPANY INCORPORATE
UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIRECTOR MR. MITESH J. SHAH,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
NO.67/1, ‘SRI RANGA’
NETTAKALLAPPA CIRCLE,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU – 560 004.
(R4 IMPLEADED VIDE COURT
ORDER DATED 13.11.2025)
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. BHAVANA S. RAO, ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. SADHANA DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2;
SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-3;
SRI. L.M. CHIDANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO PASS APPROPRIATE
DIRECTION TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT ACTING ON BEHALF
OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO INITIATE APPROPRIATE ACTION
ON THE BASIS OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 31.01.2025
FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT
WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56767
WP No. 7807 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010184022025
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner has approached this court seeking issuance of
a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2, acting on behalf of
respondent No.1-State Bank of India to initiate appropriate action
on the representation dated 31.01.2025 submitted by the petitioner,
alleging certain financial irregularities committed by the officials of
the respondent No.1-bank in sanctioning and disbursing loans and
for a consequential direction to submit a report regarding the action
taken on the said representation.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The petitioner claims to have purchased flat No.102 in an
apartment complex developed by M/s Rajarajeshware Builddcon
Private Limited, situated at Banashankari II Stage, Bengaluru,
under a registered sale deed dated 31.03.2023 for sale
consideration of ` One Crore. According to the petitioner,
subsequently in November 2023, he came to know that the
directors of the developer had executed an agreement dated
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56767
WP No. 7807 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010184022025
07.08.2021 in favour of one B.S.Satya Chandan in respect of the
very same property. It is alleged that the developer and his
directors have entered into multiple transactions involving
properties already encumbered in favour of third parties and had
continued to sell such property to innocent purchaser.
3. It is further alleged that the officials of respondent No.1-
bank, in collusion with the developer and its directors, sanctioned
and disbursed loans in respect of properties which were already
encumbered without proper verification of title and encumbrances,
thereby causing financial loss to the bank. In this background, the
petitioner submitted a representation dated 31.01.2025 to
respondent No.2, requesting appropriate action to be taken against
the employees allegedly involved in such financial irregularities.
Alleging that no action has been taken on the said representation,
the petitioner has approached this court.
CONTENTIONS
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
contend that despite the serious allegation of financial irregularities
in the sanction and disbursement of loans by the officials of
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56767
WP No. 7807 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010184022025
respondent No.1-bank, no action has been initiated on the
representation dated 31.01.2025 submitted by the petitioner. It is
therefore contended that inaction on part of the respondent No.1-
bank warrants interference by this court.
Per contra
5. , learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3-
CBI would contend that no relief has been sought against CBI. It is
further submitted that the allegations pertain to transaction confined
to the State of Karnataka and do not involve any interstate or
international ramifications warranting investigation by the CBI.
Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
State of West Bengal and Others vs Committee for Protection
1
of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Others , it is contended
that the direction for investigation by the CBI can only be issued in
exceptional circumstances and not as a matter of routine.
REASONS AND CONCLUSION
6. The grievance of the petitioner is essentially with regard to
the alleged inaction of the respondent No.1-bank in considering the
representation dated 31.01.2025 wherein certain allegations of
1
(2010) 10 SCC 571
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56767
WP No. 7807 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010184022025
financial irregularities have been made against the officials in
connection with the sanction and disbursement of loans. The
allegations made by the petitioner involve disputed questions of
fact, which require examination by the competent authority. This
Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, does not propose to examine the correctness
or otherwise of such allegations.
7. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has sought for
consideration of his representation and for initiation of appropriate
action thereon. Merely because certain allegations have been
made against the official of the respondent No.1-bank, no direction
can be issued as a matter of course to initiate disciplinary or
criminal proceedings against them. However, having regard to the
limited nature of relief, this court is of the considered view that it is
apposite to direct respondent No.1-bank to examine the
representation through its competent authority and take appropriate
decision thereon in accordance with law and the applicable rules
and procedures.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56767
WP No. 7807 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010184022025
8. Insofar as respondent No.3-CBI is concerned, admittedly no
specific relief seeking investigation by the CBI has been sought in
the writ petition. Therefore, no direction is warranted against
respondent No.3.
9. In view of the foregoing reasons, the writ petition deserves to
be disposed of with a limited direction to respondent No.1-bank to
consider the representation submitted by the petitioner in
accordance with law. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands
disposed of , with a direction to respondent No.1-bank to consider
the representation dated 31.01.2025 submitted by the petitioner
through its competent authority and take appropriate decision
thereon in accordance with law and the applicable rules and
procedures, within a period of six weeks from date. This Court has
not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations made in
the representation.
Sd/-
____________________
JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
CKL
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25