JOY JOSEPH Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these cases, a common issue is raised and therefore, I am disposing all these writ petitions by a common judgment.

(2.) The petitioners leased out their building in favour of Popular Finance for running their branch office. After registration of the crime against them under the provisions of the Kerala Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2013 (KPID Act, 2013) and the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (BUDS Act, 2019), the District Collector, the authorised officer had initiated proceedings to lock and seal all the buildings, branches and offices and to effect attachment of cash, gold and other assets of all institutions which belong to or under the management of the Popular Finance and its allied firms/its partners. Even though the investigation was going on, the vacant possession of the building is not being handed over to the petitioners. That is the grievance of the petitioners. According to the petitioners, they have no connection with the Popular Finance and they are only the landlords of the building in which the branch of the Popular Finance was functioning. Hence, these writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate direction commanding the respondents to release the vacant buildings to the petitioners within a time frame.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader. I also heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.