HARENDRA KUMAR SINGH S/O SRI U.P. SINGH RESIDENT OF CHAMBER NO. C Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been preferred by an advocate as a party in - person and following are the prayers in this writ petition:-

(2.) Party in - person ( who is the lawyer of this High Court) submitted that there are several illegalities committed by the chit fund companies and the poor persons of the State of Jharkhand are being cheated. These facts are known to the State of Jharkhand, yet the State Authorities are not taking any steps. It is further submitted by the party inperson that several persons, whose companies are being registered at Kolkota, are operating in the State of Jharkhand and thus, such companies should stop their activities in the State of Jharkhand. It is further submitted by the party in - person that the Jharkhand State has now enacted Jharkhand Protection of Interest of Depositors ( In Financial Establishments) Act, 2011 and it has been published in the official gazette ,but, it is submitted by the party in - person, with all surprise, that how His Excellency, the President has given the assent within a couple of days, whereas in the adjoining States like Orissa, 2 to 3 years time has been consumed. It is further submitted by the party in - person that other States have also constituted one man commission and such type of Judicial Commission may be constituted by the order of this Court to investigate into the activities of the chit fund companies. It is also submitted by the party in - person that Jharkhand State should follow the neighbouring States, who have taken enough and adequate steps to stop the illegal activities of the chit fund companies.

(3.) Counsel for the Respondent - State has submitted that before stopping any company's activities, it ought to have been established that there is illegal activities committed by a particular company and for which several First Information Reports have been preferred. Certain orders have already been passed by a Division Bench of this Court whereby Central Bureau of Investigation is doing investigation. It is further submitted by the respondents that special act has been enacted to protect the interest of the depositors. The said act is known as Jharkhand Protection of Interest of Depositors ( In Financial Establishments) Act, 2011 and the rules have also been framed thereunder. Under this Act, there are as many as 191 cases registered. Thus, where there is prima facie evidence, immediately, in accordance with the Act and the rules, the steps have been initiated by the State. Nonetheless, punishment depends upon the proof and the several other factors in the court matters.