MARIA CRUZ Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order in G.O.Ms.No.352, Home (Courts IIA) Department, dated 24.04.2002, passed by the first respondent and to quash the same.

(2.) THE petitioner has stated that one of his relatives, namely, Jerome David, had started a financial establishment in the year 1999. THE said Jerome David had expired on 21.06.2002. He was working as a Government servant in the various departments of the Government of Tamil Nadu and he had resigned his job after working for more than 12 years. THE financial institutions started by Jerome David in the name of 'Jerma Bankers, where several persons had deposited their amounts and loans were also given to various persons. However, a few persons, who were inimical to Jerome David had instigated the depositors to lodge a false complaint, before the second respondent. THEreafter, the third respondent had interfered with the affairs of the Bank obstructing his business transactions. A criminal case in Crime No.7 of 2001, had been registered, under Section 420 IPC and Section 5 of the TNPID Act, against Jerome David and five others, including the petitioner herein. After the death of Jerome David, the first respondent had attached certain properties, vide G.O.Ms.No.352, dated 24.04.2002. It has been further stated that as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997, the immovable properties which have been purchased by the financial establishment, from the deposits collected from the depositors, can be attached. However, the petitioner and Jerome David had not procured any immovable property from and out of the deposits collected from the depositors. THE first respondent had passed an order of attachment, vide G.O.Ms.No.352, dated 24.04.2002, even though the said properties had been purchased by the petitioner and by Jerome David prior to the establishment of the Bank. Based on the said order, the third respondent and the Tahsildar, Kalkulam Taluk, had been asking the petitioner to vacate and hand over the present properties.

(3.) PER contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent had submitted that when the impugned order has been passed by the first respondent, only in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997, since a prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner, as well as Jerome David, who had established the 'Jerma Bankers', and the properties had to be attached, since the first respondent had satisfied that the financial establishment has no material to return the deposits to the depositors. The impugned order had been passed only the complaints given by the depositors. However, a criminal case had been lodged and the same has been registered in Crime No.7 of 2001, under Section 420 IPC and Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997. Therefore, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner are devoid of merits. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.