Dipankar Datta, J. - (1.) Although the dispute that this Bench is called upon to examine is between a political party on the one hand and a nationalized bank on the other, the basic question that would engage the attention of this Bench is, whether the wish of a person, who is no longer alive in this mortal world, should be allowed to prevail over a technical objection.
(2.) The aforesaid question emerges in view of the facts narrated hereafter.
(3.) Tushar Kanti Das Purakayastha (since deceased), during his lifetime, maintained a savings bank account (hereafter the said account) with the Syed Amir Ali Avenue Branch (hereafter the said branch) of the United Bank of India (hereafter UBI). Being a member of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) [hereafter the petitioner], late Tushar Kanti Das Purakayastha [hereafter the customer] had nominated the Secretary, Kolkata District Committee of the petitioner to whom the amount lying in deposit in such account may be returned by the said branch in the event of his death. After his death on January 20, 2014, the petitioner by its letter dated February 17, 2014 requested the Manager of the said branch, the respondent No. 2, to release and disburse the available credit balance in its favour since it was the lawful nominee. The respondent No. 2 by his letter dated March 28, 2014 informed the petitioner that the nomination made by the customer is not a valid one under Sec. 45ZA of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (hereafter the Act) and rule 2(1) of the Banking Companies (Nomination) Rules, 1985 (hereafter the Rules) and consequently, did not accept the petitioner's request. This was followed by a notice dated August 18, 2015 issued by the petitioner's learned advocate demanding justice from the respondent No. 2. The same did not yield any result, leading to presentation of this writ petition before this Court on August 5, 2015.;