Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/969/2026 of SRI SAI WINES Vs THE UNION OF INDIA on 21 June 2026
Citation:……………………… Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : 22.06.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010013702026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND
Neutral Citation:………………………
Date of reserved for orders :
Date of pronouncement : 22.06.2026
Date of uploading :
APHC010013702026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
Between:
1. SRI SAI WINES, DOOR NO. 15-9-152, NUTHAKKI VILLAGE, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY
ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI PALLA AKHIL REDDY, S/O PALLA
KARUNAKAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O FLAT NO. 501, USHODHAYA
HOMES,
ROCK
HILLS
COLONY,
LB
NAGAR,
MANSOORABAD, K.V. RANGAREDDY, TELANGANA-500068.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY MINISTRY OF FINANCE, JEEVANDEEP BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-110001.
2. THE
RESERVE
BANK
OF
INDIA,
REPRESENTED
BY
ITS
GOVERNOR, SANSAD . MARG, NEW DELHI-110001.
3. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, MANGALAGIRI BRANCH (BRANCH
CODE 01011), REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522503.
4. THE OFFICERINCHARGE/CYBER CELL OFFICER, , CYBER CELL
(CODE 64890), PATNA DISTRICT, STATE OF BIHAR - 800001.
5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, , BARIARPUR POLICE STATION, MUNGER DISTRICT, STATE OF BIHAR- 811211.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus,declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the respondents 3 to 5 herein in freezing the bank account of the petitioner account bearing No. 43461149232 with the 3rd respondent without there being any prior notice, without disclosure of reasons, and without providing an opportunity of hearing, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 and 300- A of the Constitution of India and contrary to the Principles of Natural Justice consequentially direct the Respondents to defreeze the bank account of the petitioner bearing No.
43461149232 with the 3rd respondent and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the Respondents to defreeze the bank account of the petitioner bearing No. 43461149232 with the 3rd respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. CHETAN PONNURU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. J U M V PRASAD (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL)
The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The case of the petitioner is that he is a licensed wine trader vide proceedings L.No.G.SI.No.GTR/34/2024-26, dated 30.10.2024, and is running business under the name and style of M/s Sri Sai Wines at D.No.15-9-152, Nuthakki Village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District, for which he opened a current account with State Bank of India, Mangalagiri Branch/the 3rd respondent herein vide Account No.43461149232. While so, on 19.08.2025, the petitioner’s account was abruptly freezed by the 3rd respondent. Having noticed the same, he approached the said Branch and enquired about the freezing of his account, pursuant to which a letter dated 15.09.2025 was served on him.
2. It is his further case that a complaint has been lodged with the 5th respondent-Station House Officer, Bariarpur Police Station, under the instructions of the 4th respondent-Cyber Cell Officer, Patna District, and upon the instructions of the 4th respondent, the petitioner’s bank account has been freezed by the 3rd respondent. A registered legal notice was also issued to the Bank/the 3rd respondent herein and the 4th respondent. By virtue of the freezing of the petitioner’s account, he is unable to operate the same for conducting his business, wherein an amount of Rs.8,26,633/- is lying. The said action in freezing the petitioner’s account, without notice and without any speaking order, has been assailed in the present writ petition.
3. Heard Sri Chetan Ponnuru, learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite service of notice, the 3rd and 4th respondents did not choose to put up their appearance.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, contended that the petitioner’s bank account has been freezed by the 3rd respondent-Bank at the instance of the 4th respondent, without issuing notice and without following due process of law. As on the date of freezing of the petitioner’s account, an amount of Rs.8,26,633/- was lying therein and, by virtue of the such freezing, the petitioner is unable to carry on his business and his money has got stuck for no fault of his. He further contended that the petitioner is running a retail outlet (liquor shop), wherein one individual purchased liquor worth Rs.1,000/- and paid the amount through UPI (Unified Payments Interface). As the said individual indulged in a cheating case, and since the amount of Rs.1,000/- had been transferred to the petitioner’s account towards such purchase, the petitioner’s account has been freezed by the 3rd respondent at the instance of the 4th respondent/Cyber Cell. The manner in which the petitioner’s account has been seized is unsustainable, contrary to law and in clear violation of principles of natural justice, that too when there is no fault on the part of the petitioner. He further contended that, nowadays, in almost all petty businesses, transactions are carried out through UPI and no petty vendor can verify the conduct and credentials of the buyers before accepting the amount through UPI. If the freezing of the petitioner’s account continues, he would be put to irreparable loss and hardship and accordingly prayed to allow the writ petition.
5. Perused the record and considered the submissions.
6. As could be culled out from the facts and circumstances of the case, the material available on record and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a transaction took place on 19.08.2025 for an amount of Rs.1,000/- in the name of Sri Sai Wines vide transaction No.461984251. It is the case of the petitioner that an individual, on that particular date, purchased liquor worth Rs.1,000/- by making payment through UPI and that a cheating case has been registered against the said individual in Patna District, Bihar State. Upon noticing that the transaction had been done through the said individual’s account, the petitioner’s account has been freezed at the instance of the 4th respondent/Cyber Cell without notice and without following due process of law. No doubt, with regard to transactions in petty businesses, amounts are being transferred between vendors and vendees through PhonePe, and Google Pay, etc., by using UPI (Unified Payments Interface). As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, if any individual purchases goods and pays through UPI using the above said applications, the vendor cannot verify the credentials of such individual. Without verifying the credentials of the petitioner and without noticing his involvement in any criminal case registered against the said individual, the authorities cannot freeze the petitioner’s account. The manner in which the petitioner account has been freezed is unsustainable and contrary to law. The petitioner has made out a case warranting interference and the freezing the petitioner’s account is illegal.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed directing the respondent-Bank to defreeze the petitioner’s account No.43461149232. The Writ Petition is dismissed against the 5th respondent as not pressed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________
JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
Date: 22.06.2026. JLV
Whether the order is: Speaking
Reasoned
Reportable
Non-reportable
Date: 22.06.2026 JLV