1 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(W)NO.761/2006 Pali Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Pali Vs. Bhimraj Nawal Date of Order :: 11-01-2007 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI S.N.JHA HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Shri R.K. Kapoor, for the appellant. This special appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 5.7.2006 disposing of the writ petition of the respondent with the observation that the appellant-Bank should pay the amount to the respondent. It is not in dispute from the savings account of the respondent, sums of Rs.10,000/- and 5,000/- were withdrawn on the basis of withdrawal slips on 20.10.1981 and 12.4.1982 respectively. There is said to be a normal practice in the bank, it may be mentioned, to allow withdrawal of cash by the customer, that is, the depositor through 'withdrawal slip.' The customer/depositor ordinarily issues bearer cheques, if he wants to withdraw the money through another person but where he wants to withdraw the money himself, the privilege of withdrawal slip is allowed. 2 In the instant case, the withdrawal was allowed not to the respondent, that is, the depositor but to his representative. In the case of representative, as mentioned above the procedure is to make payment on the basis of cheque. There was a clear negligence on the part of officials of the appellant-Bank. As a matter of fact, the auditor objected to the payment on the ground that signature did not tally with that of the depositor. The case of the appellant is that money having been withdrawn in 1981 and 1982, the writ petition was not maintainable in 1993. It was submitted that for loss of money, the respondent should have filed civil suit. In the instant case, it was stated, the respondent had filed a criminal case in which final report was submitted. The protest petition was dismissed in default. The respondent then moved the Joint Registrar, Co- operative Society but the complaint was dismissed. After a long gap, he moved the District Consumer Forum but the said complaint too was dismissed. The appeal therefore also stood dismissed in course of time. In the circumstances, according to the counsel, the writ petition should not have been entertained. In our opinion, the entertainability of the writ petition was relevant till the stage of 3 admission of the writ petition. The petition having been admitted, the question of alternative remedy became insignificant. As observed at the outset, payment of money through the representative on the basis of withdrawal slip not being in accordance with practice, we do not think the learned Single Judge committed error in upholding the claim of the respondent. It is not a fit case for interference by the Division Bench. The appeal stands dismissed. [GOVIND MATHUR],J. [S.N.JHA],CJ. Praveen