Writ remedy and bank secrecy limits bar stale claims for interest, damages, and monetary relief after delayed payment.

A writ petition under Article 226 was not maintainable for a bare claim of interest or damages for delayed payment of the exchange value of high denomination bank notes, particularly where the claim was stale and filed long after release of the amount. The Court treated the bank's disclosure of deposit particulars to the income-tax authorities as justified where disclosure was compelled by law or supported by public duty, and therefore not actionable. The challenge to provisional attachment under the Income-tax Act did not establish any basis for the monetary relief sought in writ proceedings. The petition was dismissed and no consequential monetary relief was granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petition for a writ of mandamus could be maintained to claim interest or damages for delayed payment of the exchange value of high denomination bank notes, and whether the disclosure of deposit particulars to the income-tax authorities and the provisional attachment of the amount were actionable.

Analysis: The exchange claim arose under the High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetisation) Ordinance, 1978, but the relief ultimately sought was not merely release of the principal amount; it was compensation by way of interest for the period during which payment was withheld. The Court held that such a claim for damages simpliciter did not lie in writ jurisdiction. The claim was also vulnerable on the ground of delay, since the writ was filed long after the amount had been released, and the equitable remedy under Article 226 is ordinarily declined where the claim is stale. On the bank secrecy point, the Court accepted that the duty of secrecy is qualified and may yield where disclosure is compelled by law or justified by public duty, and it treated the bank's disclosure to the income-tax authorities as falling within that exception. The challenge to the provisional attachment under the Income-tax Act, 1961 did not produce a basis for granting the monetary relief sought in the writ proceedings.

Conclusion: The claim for interest or damages was not maintainable in writ jurisdiction, and the petition failed.

Final Conclusion: The proceeding was dismissed, and no consequential monetary relief was granted.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition under Article 226 is not ordinarily maintainable for a bare claim of interest or damages for delayed payment of money, especially where the claim is stale, and disclosure by a bank may be justified when made under compulsion of law or a qualifying public duty.

---