Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
22.05.2026 Gtk vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others on 22 May, 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
WRIT PETITION NO.14777 of 2026
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. Office
No DATE ORDER Note
01. 22.05.2026 GTK, J
Heard Sri Sriman, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is
permitted to take out personal notice to the
respondents by Speed Post with
acknowledgment due and file proof of service in
the Registry.
The Writ Petition is filed seeking a
Mandamus to declare the action of the 2nd and 3rd
respondent in imposing temporary debit freeze on
the petitioner Church bank accounts vide Account
Numbers 1)044610011000220 2)
044610011000269 3)044610011009951 4)
044610100089280 without any order from a
competent Court and merely on the basis of rival
private claims as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional
and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 300-A of the
Constitution of India.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would
directly take this Court to the impugned order
dated 29.04.2026 which is addressed to the
Controller, Sri Kurian Joseph by the Chief
Manager/respondent No.3 indicating that he
received conflicting legal notices from both sides
and was instructed by the AELC Administrator to
freeze the accounts. It is further indicated that
because of the said conflicting notices which are
causing confusion the accounts are temporarily
freezed until final and specific written orders.
Learned counsel would contend that the
said impugned order does not indicate any
reason or throw light as to what are the legal
notices and who are both sides. He further
contends that there is no mention about the
parties and when the administrator has instructed
to freeze the accounts and on his own judgment,
he came to the conclusion that there is confusion.
This Court upon a holistic reading of the
said order would find that there is absurdity in the
order issued by the 3rd respondent, who is the
Chief Manager of Union Bank. The said letter is
addressed to the Administrator and as argued by
the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Sriman,
that the Manager can invoke the said penal
action only in pursuance to any complaint issued
by any authority, any police after investigation.
No such reasons are forthcoming from the said
order and it is beyond cavil of doubt that any
order passed by any authority should be
embedded with the reasons which are called to
be the heart beat of the said order. The order
would also be arbitrary in the absence of
providing any opportunity, if the order involves
civil and evil consequences.
The Union Bank also falls within the
definition of ‘State’ under Articles 12 and 13 of
the Constitution of India, and it is well settled law
that any action of the State must be within the
four corners of the law and follow due process by
assigning reasons in the order.
The legion of ruling, clearly underscore
that, when the order involves civil and evil
consequences, opportunity of being heard to be
provided, else, would be hit by Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. In Uma Nath Pandey and
others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others1,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, at paragraphs 10
and 11, observed as follows:
“10. The adherence to principles of natural justice as
recognized by all civilized States is of supreme
importance when a quasi-judicial body embarks on
determining disputes between the parties, or any
administrative action involving civil consequences is in
issue. These principles are well settled. The first and
foremost principle is what is commonly known as audi
alteram partem rule. It says that no one should be
condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this
principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should
appraise the party determinatively the case he has to
meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so
as to enable him to make his representation. In the
absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable
opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated.
Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on
notice of the case before any adverse order is passed
against him. This is one of the most important principles
of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair
play. The concept has gained significance and shades
with time. When the historic document was made at1
(2009) 12 SCC 40
Runnymede in 1215, the first statutory recognition of this
principle found its way into the “Magna Carta”. The
classic exposition of Sir Edward Coke of natural justice
requires to “vocate, interrogate and adjudicate”. In the
celebrated case of Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of
Works [(1863) 143 ER 414], the principle was thus
stated:
“Even God did not pass a sentence upon Adam, before
he was called upon to make his defence. “Adam” says
God, “where art thou? hast thou not eaten of the tree
whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not
eat?”.
11. Principles of natural justice are those rules
which have been laid down by the Courts as being the
minimum protection of the rights of the individual against
the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial,
quasi-judicial and administrative authority while making
an order affecting those rights. These rules are intended
to prevent such authority from doing injustice.”
This Court is prima facie satisfied that the
order does not contain any reasons and in view
of the same, the order dated 29.04.2026 passed
by the 3rd respondent is suspended with a
direction to the 3rd respondent to defreeze the
Account Nos. 1)044610011000220
2)044610011000269 3)044610011009951
4) 044610100089280.
Post the matter after Summer Vacation,
2026.
________
GTK, J
BSP/RKS
