Writ relief is unavailable where the petitioner fails to establish error in the bank’s dues calculation.

The petitioner, formerly a driver with Allahabad Bank (now Indian Bank), retired on 31 December 2014.

His sons had obtained overdraft/loan facilities from the Bank, for which the petitioner stood as guarantor.

On 19 January 2015, he requested that the outstanding loan liabilities be adjusted from his retiral dues.

After the Bank allegedly failed to act, he filed CWJC No. 911 of 2017, which was withdrawn with liberty to approach the Bank for an amicable settlement.

He subsequently filed CWJC No. 6447 of 2020, disposed of on 20 June 2023 with liberty to submit a representation before the Managing Director, who was directed to pass a reasoned order on the basis of the Bank’s records.

Pursuant thereto, the petitioner’s representation was considered after an opportunity of personal hearing and was rejected by a reasoned order dated 13 March 2024; the Bank directed him to pay the outstanding dues.

The Bank calculated the dues as ₹32,29,712.77 as on 19 January 2015, adjusted retiral dues of ₹18,84,612.69, and determined the balance payable by the petitioner to be ₹13,45,100.08.

The petitioner challenged the decision, disputed the charging of compound interest, claimed interest on withheld retiral benefits, and sought protection against coercive recovery.

1. Whether the Bank’s order determining the petitioner’s outstanding liability after adjustment of his retiral dues was illegal, arbitrary, or unsupported by the record

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to interest on the retiral benefits allegedly withheld between 1 January 2015 and 31 July 2016

3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to restrain the Bank from taking coercive steps for recovery of the balance dues

The Court applied the principles governing judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly that writ jurisdiction is concerned with examining the legality, procedural fairness, and reasonableness of an administrative decision rather than undertaking a fresh determination of disputed financial calculations.

A reasoned order passed after consideration of the representation and after granting an opportunity of hearing will not be interfered with unless the petitioner demonstrates an apparent error, arbitrariness, or illegality in the decision-making process.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court found that the Bank had complied with the earlier direction issued in CWJC No. 6447 of 2020 by considering the petitioner’s representation, granting him an opportunity of personal hearing, and passing a detailed order based on the available records.

The petitioner did not produce documents substantiating his objections despite being given an opportunity to do so.

The Bank separately calculated the liabilities as on the date of retirement, the date of the petitioner’s settlement request, and 30 September 2021, and the Court found no identifiable error in the calculation ultimately adopted as on 19 January 2015.

After adjusting the petitioner’s retiral dues against the loan liability, the balance of ₹13,45,100.08 remained payable.

Since the petitioner failed to demonstrate any error in the calculation or illegality in the impugned order, the Court declined to interfere under Article 226.

The writ application was dismissed for lack of merit.

Consequently, the Bank’s determination that ₹13,45,100.08 remained payable after adjustment of the petitioner’s retiral dues was not disturbed, and no relief was granted regarding interest on the withheld retiral benefits or protection against recovery.