IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 7234 of 2005 SURYA DEO PRASAD Versus THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, SARASAT ----------- 3 22.08.2008 Heard. The petitioner has his pension accounts in State Bank of India, Sarasat, Naubatpur, district-Patna. In the said Bank, he had two short term deposits of amount. Petitioner pledged one of the STDRs as a guarantor for a loan to one Binod Kumar. As against his pension accounts, he took a personal loan. Petitioner then took a demand loan against the second STDR. All three such accounts were, as such, encumbered by the petitioner but without disclosing these, the writ application was filed praying that the two STDRs of the petitioner with the Bank were not being released/encashed and given to the petitioner. A counter affidavit and a supplementary counter affidavit have been filed which have brought these facts on record. It is stated in the supplementary counter affidavit that so far as personal loan taken against the pension account is concerned, the same is being satisfied by deductions from the said accounts. So far as STDR, which was pledged as gruantee for loan to Binod Kumar is concerned, Binod Kumar, being a defaulter, the guarantee was invoked, STDR adjusted and account closed. So far as the second STDR is concerned, banker’s lien was extended to it for demand loan granted to the petitioner. Petitioner could not be given the said STDR on encashment till he requested for the demand loan to be adjusted against the amount payable therein. 2 Petitioner states that he had been repeatedly asking for encashment of the STDR but the Bank, instead of encashing it without his consent, renewed for a long period at low interest rates. Unfortunately, this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere in these matters. It is obvious when banker’s lien was created over the STDR for demand loan taken by the petitioner, the Bank cannot permit the lien to be extinguished or removed without clearing the debts and it is in the interest of the petitioner to keep the STDR renewed or else it would lie with the Bank with the lien thereon without any income accruing thereon to the petitioner. In fact if the Bank had not renewed the STDR, they would have failed in their obligation to their customer and the petitioner would have suffered immensely. In my view, it is for the petitioner to approach the Bank for adjusting the outstanding demand loan against the balance to the credit in the STDR and then take the balance on encashment as per banking norms. This Court can issue no direction in the matter. The writ petition is misconceived and is, thus, dismissed. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)