|An application under Article 32 of the constitution of India to direct the concerned to return the money drawn from the account of Anjali Kumari and an F.I.R. may be lodged against those found guilty of not taking appropriate action in the matter.
Chief Justice of India/ Companion Judges of the apex court
Supreme Court of India, New Delhi
Subject-This representation is on behalf of Anjali Kumari, Mobile number- 7054703028, Village Adampur, Post Neebi Gaharwar, Police station- Vindhyachal, District-Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, Pin code-231303.
The ground of rejection of the complaint by the banking ombudsman Kanpur-Complaint No. 201920011032606 was forwarded to State Bank of India for resolution/ comments. The bank has informed that the transactions dated back to November 2018. However, the complainant did not act diligently and did not pursue the matter with the bank within 7 working days of the disputed transactions as per the rule laid down in limited liability circular of RBI (RBI/2017-18/15 DBR.No.Leg.BC.78/09.07.005/2017-18 dated July 6, 2017) in respect of fraudulent transactions. Hence, the complaint was rejected under clause 13.1(a) of Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006.
Sir ground of rejection of complaint by the Banking ombudsman Kanpur is flimsy and not consistent with the matter raised by the applicant.
Aforementioned regulation is for those banking frauds, which takes place under the cognizance of account holder and entire information concerned with the cheating happens before the account holder. Here the account holder was seeking the passbook from the branch manager so vigilance of the account holder can not be questioned here.
Sir it is a proven fact that Rs.12900 drawn from the account of an oppressed girl student belonging to scheduled caste so this amount must be refunded by the state bank of India.
More than forty representations have been submitted in the matter to seek justice for the oppressed girl student so to deprive her of Rs.12900 provided her by the government of India as scholarship reflects only lawlessness and anarchy full of corruption in the government machinery.
Following is the third submission of attached email representation sent to banking ombudsman Kanpur which means that he instead of adopting logistic approach and reasoned conclusions to the submitted complaints only prefers arbitrary and tyrannical orders which crush the rule of law.
If you think that anything is wrong in this application submitted on behalf of aggrieved applicant Anjali Kumari and her father, then I invite you to lodge an F.I.R. against me. I gladly accept your constructive steps in this regard. Who opened this account? Who operated this account? Who withdrew money from this account? Here Anjali Kumari knew the details of the account when Passbook was made available by the branch manager concerned aggrieved girl student Anjali Kumari. Whether it is not obligatory duty of the public authority State Bank of India to provide responses to the aforementioned queries?
The aforementioned picture is the communication dated 18/06/2019 Ref No. S.B.I. /2018-19 of the Branch manager Sirsa Allahabad of the state bank of India addressed to your applicant.
According to aforementioned communication, the branch manager requested the applicant that the passbook printer is not working because of this technical issue. Passbook can not be printed but it will be resolved soon and the passbook will be printed and you will be informed soon within two days.
This request was done by the branch manager to manage the disposal of grievances submitted by the applicant on the CPGRAM.
The passbook was made available by the branch manager after one and half month later through the registered post to Anjali Kumari at her address.
This shows that Anjali Kumari did not know that there is any account in the name Anjali Kumari opened in the Sirsa Bank Allahabad and she apprised with the account when the communication of state Bank of India reached her regarding ATM. Mr. Banking Ombudsman Kanpur, how will she know that someone drew money from her account through multiple transactions?
Every representation is sent before the apex court of India by the applicant in the same way following representation is also emailed to the apex court.
||Thu, 20 Jun 2019, 16:53
||Reply to all
|to pmosb, presidentofindia, supremecourt, urgent-action, cmup, hgovup, csup, uphrclko
You managed to get the grievance disposed of on the ground that the applicant was properly responded by the branch and reply is attached as a report to the grievance. According to the sent e-mail of the branch concerned, Dear sir This is with reference to your complaint about passbook not provided to customer Ms Anjani Kumari
Pl acknowledge the attachment for the same Regards Branch Manager SBI SIRSA which was sent by the branch on 18-Jun-2019. Because of some technical lacuna, he could not provide the passbook to the aggrieved student but assured to provide within two days. It Should be noted that now two days have passed since the date of sending the e-mail of the branch manager but the branch manager could not keep its promise.
जो यहां पर महत्वपूर्ण विन्दु है यदि स्टेट बैंक ऑफ़ इंडिया के शाखा प्रबंधक यह दावा करते है की उन्होंने ब्यथा निवारण कर दिया तो बताये कैसे क्योकि ब्यथा निवारण के लिए पीड़िता अंजली कुमारी पिता हरिश्चंद्र को पास बुक मिलनी चाहिए थी किन्तु शाखा प्रबंधक द्वारा कही भी इस बात बात का दावा नहीं किया गया की पासबुक तैयार है इसका मतलब साफ है की इस रिपोर्ट के शब्द सिर्फ ब्यथा को निस्तारित कराने की एक कुटिल चाल है | श्री मान जी प्रार्थी द्वारा इस बात का अनुरोध किया गया था की ब्यथा निवारण नहीं होना चाहिए जब तक दलित लड़की को उसका पासबुक न मिल जाय किन्तु वे अपनी सोची समझी रणनीति पर ही चले | सभी जानते है की इस तरह के खातों का संचालन महाविद्यालय के स्टाफ और बैंक कर्मी मिल जुल कर करते है इसलिए लड़कियों द्वारा बार मांग किये जाने पर यह कह कर टाल दिया गया की कॉलेज के अध्यापक को लिवा के आइये | श्री मान पास बुक कॉलेज के अध्यापक का क्या रोल है | दाल में कुछ तो काला है या पूरी पूरी दाल काली है किसी ईमानदार लोकसेवक के जांच के पश्चात ही सामने आएगा |
Grievance Status for registration number: DEABD/E/2019/17109
Grievance Concerns To
Name Of Complainant –Yogi M. P. Singh Date of Receipt –05/06/2019
Received By Ministry/Department –Financial Services (Banking Division)
Matter is concerned with the providing passbook of a girl student belonging to weaker and downtrodden section by the branch concerned of state bank of India as staff of the bank arbitrarily kept the passbook under its possession illegally which promotes corruption. Details of the grievance with documentary evidence are attached.
Grievance Document Current Status –Case closed
Date of Action –20/06/2019 Remarks –Report Number 1, From SBI LHO LUCKNOW on 18/06/2019 approved by NA Report remarks complainant has been replied suitably by the branch. branch reply attached Grievance status
Reply Document Rating Rating Remarks
You managed to get the grievance disposed of on the ground that the applicant was properly responded by the branch and reply is attached as a report to the grievance. According to the sent e-mail of the branch concerned, Dear sir This is with reference to your complaint about passbook not provided to the customer Ms Anjani Kumari Pl acknowledges the attachment for the same Regards Branch Manager SBI SIRSA which was sent by the branch on 18-Jun-2019. Because of some technical lacuna, he could not provide the passbook to the aggrieved student but assured to provide within two days. Point to be noted that now two days passed since the date of sending the e-mail of the branch manager but branch manager could not keep its promise.
Officer Concerns To
Officer Name –Sri Gautam Sengupta Officer Designation –Chief General Manager
Contact Address –State Bank of India,New Administrative Bldg. , Motimahal Marg , Hazratganj , Lucknow (UP)
Email Address –email@example.com Contact Number –05222201492
महोदय क्या आप जानते है की रिज़र्व बैंक ऑफ़ इंडिया के बैंकिंग ओम्बुड्स मान कानपुर मामले को चोरी से रफा दफा कर देना चाहते थे अन्यथा प्रार्थी को क्यों अपने निर्णय से वंचित रखते श्री मान जी क्या ऐसा ब्यक्ति बैंकिंग सेक्टर में होने वाली अनिमितता को रोक सकते है जिन्हे विनियमन और परिपत्र तक समझ में नहीं आते है |
Complaint No. 201920011032606 was forwarded to State Bank of India for resolution/ comments.
श्री मान जी क्या बैंकिंग ओम्बुड्स मान कानपुर की नियुक्ति इसलिए की गयी है की पहले वे शिकायतों पर चुप्पी मारकर बैठ जाते है और शिकायत कर्ता मामले में पूछ ताछ किया तो दूसरी पक्ष का कमेंट मगा कर निर्णय के रूप में पहले पक्ष को उपलब्ध करा देते है |
Whether the applicant had submitted the complaint before the banking ombudsman to seek the resolution of state bank of India or resolution of Banking Ombudsman Kanpur? What is the need of this authority acting like a post office only and causing heavy burden on the public exchequer?
Grievance Status for registration number : DEABD/E/2020/47052
Grievance Concerns To
Name Of Complainant
Yogi M. P. Singh
Date of Receipt
Received By Ministry/Department
Financial Services (Banking Division)
Financial Services (Banking Division) >> Miscellaneous/Others
Department/Bank/Financial Institute : Reserve Bank of India
Branch / Name of Bank and Branch : Banking Ombudsman Kanpur Uttar Pradesh
Complaint no – 201920011032606 submitted on 22-June-2020 by Anjali Kumari before Kanpur Banking Ombudsman be taken into account.
The aforementioned subject was sent to Kanpur Banking Ombudsman on his executive email as a reminder on 05-Aug-2020 quite obvious from the attached document to the representation. Think about the gravity of the situation that matter is concerned with deep-rooted corruption and irregularity but concerned the aforementioned banking ombudsman is not serious to the compla
Date of Action
Complaint No. 201920011032606 was forwarded to State Bank of India for resolution/ comments. The bank has informed that the transactions dated back to November 2018. However, the complainant did not act diligently and did not pursue the matter with the bank within 7 working days of the disputed transactions as per the ruled laid down in limited liability circular of RBI (RBI/2017-18/15 DBR.No.Leg.BC.78/09.07.005/2017-18 dated July 6, 2017) in respect of fraudulent transactions. Hence, the complaint was rejected under clause 13.1(a) of Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006.
Banking Ombudsman Kanpur is well informed with the fact that the account was operated by the anonymous person, not by Anjali Kumari. When the concerned branch manager made available the passbook to Anjali Kumari, then the Anjali Kumari knew about it. First concerned branch manager procrastinated in providing the passbook to the applicant but after repeated representations, he provided it. Instead of inviting the transparent and accountable enquiry in the matter concerned with the deep-rooted corruption, concerned accountable public functionaries only trying to put carpet in the matter. It seems that the Banking ombudsman has no reasoned approach to the matter and lack of common sense of understanding otherwise matters concerned with serious irregularity may not be overlooked by him. Here integrity in this matter of deep corruption ipso facto involvement of staff of state bank of India itself of the banking ombudsman is not impeccable. The ground of rejection of the complaint is mysterious so
Officer Concerns To
Pankaj Kumar Nayak
Sought information by the applicant Anjali Kumari is as follows.
CPIO may provide the following point-wise information as sought.
1-Notings and action taken by the branch manager State Bank of India Branch: Sirsa Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh on the representation dated-03/02/2020 attached to the communique.
2- Grievance Status for registration number: DEABD/E/2020/12437 Name Of Complainant-Yogi M. P. Singh Date of Receipt-19/03/2020
Provide the reason for not forwarding the aforementioned grievance submitted on behalf of the applicant to the aforementioned branch manager concerned as the matter is closely connected with his working.
Provided information by the CPIO after the appeal submitted online registered as SBILW/A/E/20/00072 on the RTI online portal of the government of India.
Ref. No. /RTI/20-21/41 dated 18/07/2020
इस संदर्भ में हम आप के द्वारा मांगी गयी कोई भी सूचना देने में असमर्थ है क्योंकि सूचना के अधिकार अधिनियम २००५ के तहत आप को रुपये १० की धन राशि का भुगतान अनिवार्य है जो की आप के द्वारा नही किया गया है या प्रतीत नही होता अगर आप की वित्तीय स्थिति गरीबी रेखा से नीचे की है तो कृपया इस सम्बन्ध में कोई साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत करे जिससे की आप के आवेदन में मागी गयी सूचना अगर आप उपलब्ध हो तो आप को बताया जा सके |
For more detail, vide attached document to the representation.
Ref. No. /RTI/20-21/34 dated 20/08/2020
आप के खाता संख्या -37200461494 जिसका वर्णन आप के पत्र में है से रुपये 12900 .00 की कोई विवरणी दिनांक 28/03/2018 से 25 /12/2018 के बीच उपस्थित नही है |
उपरोक्त उत्तर सिर्फ सूचना के प्रयोजनार्थ है | यदि आप हमारे उत्तर से संतुष्ट नही है तो कृपया उक्त पत्र की प्राप्ति की ३० दिनों के अन्दर आप अपीलीय अधिकारी से अपील कर सकते है |
For more detail vide attached document to the representation.
Whether CPIO has not misled your appellant ipso facto obvious?
The matter is concerned with the deep-rooted corruption and instead of taking action in the matter, S.B.I. is only making a failed attempt to put carpet on the matter through its staffs and dilly-dallying approach and procrastination in the matter from the beginning.
महोदय अंजली कुमारी द्वारा शाखा प्रबंधक को शाखा पर जा कर शिकायत दिया गया और उस पत्र / शिकायत का स्कैन कॉपी लखनऊ मुख्यालय भेजा गया किंतु १२९०० रुपये का तो हिस्सा लग गया तो फिर कौन अपनी जेब से देगा |
खुदा भी आसमाँ से जब जमी पे देखता होगा |
इस मेरे प्यारे देश को क्या हुआ सोचता होगा||
This is a humble request of your applicant to you Hon’ble Sir that how can it be justified to withhold public services arbitrarily and promote anarchy, lawlessness and chaos arbitrarily by making the mockery of law of land? There is need of the hour to take harsh steps against the wrongdoer to win the confidence of citizenry and strengthen the democratic values for healthy and prosperous democracy. For this, your applicant shall ever pray for you, Hon’ble Sir.
Date-21/09/2020 Yours sincerely
Yogi M. P. Singh, Mobile number-7379105911, Mohalla- Surekapuram, Jabalpur Road, District-Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, Pin code-231001.
[Quoted text hidden]
||Misleading information to Anjali Kumari.pdf