SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT Vs. RAVICHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Appeal is directed against the order of a learned single Judge, dated 06. 08. 2007, passed in W. P. No. 21208 of 2004, in and by which the Writ Petition was allowed, quashing the impugned order in G. O. Ms. No. 637, Home (Court-IIA) Department, dated 06. 07. 2001, holding that the authorities have no right to interfere with any lawful rights of the writ petitioners in respect of the property purchased by them and consequently directing the fourth appellant to take up the document presented by the writ petitioners before him for registration and process it for registration in accordance with the Indian Registration Act and the Indian Stamp Act and, if everything is found to be in order, to release the document to the writ petitioners, after registration.

(2.) ACCORDING to the respondents/writ petitioners, based on an assurance given by the depositors' association that they would settle the amount to the depositors and withdraw the case, they purchased the property situate at Door No. 12, Barnabi Road, Kilpauk, Chennai, measuring about 1 Ground 1250 Sq. ft. through a sale deed, dated 19. 01. 2004. While so, on 06. 07. 2001, the first appellant made interim attachment of the said property under Section 3 of The Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act,1997, (in short, "the Act"), and issued G. O. Ms. No. 637, against which the Writ Petition was filed, which was allowed. Aggrieved over the said order, the respondents therein have preferred this Writ Appeal.

(3.) MR. D. SREENIVASAN, learned Special Government Pleader, would strenuously contend that the Government is empowered to attach the properties purchased or procured from out of the deposit money collected from the public; if such property is not sufficient for repayment to the depositors, it may attach the properties of the financial establishments and such other properties of the manager/member/promoter/partner/director and borrower to the extent of their liabilities as per the provisions of Section 3 of the Act and, therefore, the ad-interim attachment passed by the Government in G. O. Ms. No. 637 is valid in law. He would further argue that notice was issued to all the respondents by the Special Court as per the provision of Section 7 of the Act and on proper investigation and examination of the witnesses, the interim order of attachment was passed on 06. 07. 2001, which the respondents cannot find fault with, as they purchased the property knowing fully well that the absolute attachment was made against the purchased property by a Special Court on 09. 09. 2002. In his last limb of contentions, the Special Government Pleader would contend that the amended Act, namely, Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 2003, under which the learned single Judge had allowed the Writ Petition, came into effect from 10th November,2003, whereas the subject matter of the impugned Government Order and the order of the Special Court, dated 09. 09. 2002, were much prior to the amendment and, hence, the impugned order of the learned single Judge, holding that the Special Court should pass order within a period of 180 days from the date of receipt of application, is liable to be set aside.