IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.26444 of 2008 Between: R.Rajyalakshmi alias Sailaja W/o.R. Vijay Kumar, R/o.H.No.2-2-1118/3/2, New Nallakunta, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, City Range-III, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 The State Bank of Hyderabad, Vidyanagar Branch, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad, rep. by its Chief Manager. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in not allowing the petitioner to operate the locker bearing No.G2/1 with the third respondent on the alleged directions of the second respondent in the Lr.No.Cr.No.29/ACH- CR/2008 dated 31.10.2008 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the third respondent to allow the petitioner to operate the locker bearing No.G2/1 and be pleased to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.SUDERSHAN REDDY Counsel for Respondent No.1: GP FOR HOME Counsel for Respondent No.2: MR. V. RAVI KIRAN RAO (SC & Spl.PP) The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.26444 OF 2008 ORDER: According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent i.e. State Bank of Hyderabad, Vidyanagar Branch, Hyderabad, has allotted a locker bearing No.G2/1 to herself and her husband jointly about twenty years ago and since then they have been operating the same. It is her case that when she went to the 3rd respondent bank on 29.11.2008 for taking ornaments kept in the said locker, she was informed that the locker has been sealed and, upon enquiry, a letter dated 30.11.2008 was addressed to her by the 3rd respondent bank stating that as per the directions of the 2nd respondent- Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, City Range-II, Hyderabad, vide letter dated 31.10.2008, the locker has been sealed. The petitioner complains that she has not been informed the reason for which the 2nd respondent has directed the 3rd respondent to seal the locker allotted to her and that the action of the respondent authorities in sealing the locker without issuing any notice to her is arbitrary and illegal. Today, Mr. V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned Standing Counsel and Special Public Prosecutor for Anti Corruption Bureau, appearing for the 2nd respondent, on instructions, submits that in the process of investigation of a case registered by the Anti Corruption Bureau against the brother-in-law of the petitioner’s husband, the locker allotted to the petitioner has been sealed and the petitioner has not been permitted to operate the same. He further submits that the authorities are willing to open the locker in the presence of the petitioner, if she cooperates, and if no incriminating material requiring sealing of the locker is available, she will be allowed to operate the locker. In view of the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel, the 3rd respondent bank is directed to allow the petitioner to open the locker in the presence of the 2nd respondent to enable the 2nd respondent to find out the contents therein and take appropriate action as required under the law. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 8th December, 2008 IBL