Karnataka High Court
Mohammed Hussain Khaji @ Riyaz vs The Under Secretary And Anr on 4 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3582
WP No. 200394 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.200394 OF 2022 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMED HUSSAIN KHAJI @ RIYAZ
S/O RAJ MOHAMMED KHAJI,
AGE: 44 YEARS,
OCC: MEMBER OF MASKI
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
R/O DOOR NO.158,
NEAR JAMIYAMASZID,
OLD WARD NO.6, PRESENT WARD NO.10,
MASKI TOWN, TQ: MASKI,
DIST: RAICHUR.
...PETITIONER
Digitally
signed by (BY SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
RENUKA
Location: AND:
High Court
Of Karnataka
1. THE UNDER SECRETARY
TO GOVT. REVENUE
DEPARTMENT (SPECIAL CELL)
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CUM COMPETENT AUTHORITY,
UNDER THE KARNATAKA
PROTECTION OF INTEREST
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3582
WP No. 200394 of 2022
OF DEPOSITORS ACT, 2004
RAICHUR-584101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR R. TENGLI, AGA FOR R1;
SRI VEERESH R. BUDIHAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH
IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.RD 9 GRC 2019,
BENGALURU DATED 25.06.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-C ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND THE NOTICE BEARING NO. SAM /
KAM / MSE / 2019-20 DATED 16.07.2019 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-D. ISSUE SUCH OTHER
WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THIS HON'BLE COURT
DEEMS JUST AND PROPER UNDER THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALLOW THIS WRIT
PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged a notification issued by
respondent No.1 under Section 3(2) of the Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3582
Establishment Act, 2004 (Henceforth referred to as 'the
Act of 2004').
2. The petitioner contends that he is the absolute
owner of the properties which were acquired out of his
own exertion. He contends that respondent No.2 being
the competent authority under the provisions of the Act of
2004, had notified the attachment of his properties on the
premise that those properties were purchased out of the
funds collected by M/s. COSMOS Agricool Harvesting
Happiness, Pharam Estate Private Limited (henceforth
referred as 'Company') from the depositors. It is
contended that the petitioner was neither the director of
the Company nor a beneficiary of any funds from the
Company and therefore, the order of attachment of the
properties was without any basis. It is further contended
that the notification dated 25.06.2019 which is impugned
in this petition did not contain any reason to justify the
attachment of the properties that stood in the name of the
petitioner. In support of his contentions, reliance is placed
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3582
on a judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of M.S. Shivashankar Vs/ State of Karnataka
and another reported in (2009) 2 KAR CK 0047.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2
submits that the order of attachment is based on the
finding by the competent authority that funds collected by
the Company were utilized to purchase the properties in
the name of the petitioner. He submits that the question
whether the petitioner was recipient of the funds or not
and whether the properties were purchased out of the
personal funds of the petitioner are all questions which
have to be raised by the petitioner in the proceedings
under Section 12 of the Act of 2004 before the Special
Court and certainly not in a writ petition before this Court.
He submits that by the order of attachment, the petitioner
is not deprived of his property, but pending inquiry by the
Special Court, restraint is put on the petitioner from
creating any encumbrance. He submits that the petitioner
is already before the Special Court by filing an application
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3582
under Section 12 of the Act of 2004 to raise the
attachment in Miscellaneous No.714/2019 before the
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Raichur which
presently is pending before the Principal Court at
Bengaluru.
4. The fact that the petitioner is already before the
Special Court in Misc.714/2019 is not seriously disputed by
the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. In that view of the matter, since the petitioner
has already subjected himself to the jurisdiction of the
Special Court and has filed an application under Section 12
of the Act of 2004, this writ petition is not maintainable
and hence, same is dismissed. However, since the petition
filed by the petitioner before the Special Court is pending
since 2019, the Special Court is requested to consider the
case of the petitioner at the earliest at any rate within the
period of three months from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order, without being influenced by
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3582
any observations made by this Court in the course of this
order.
It is needless to mention that the petition filed by
respondent No.2 before the Special Court under Section
5(2) of the Act of 2004 shall be taken up together along
with the petition filed by the petitioner.
In view of disposal of writ petition, I.A.No.1/2024
stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RSP
CT:SI
