Madras High Court
Senthilkumar vs The Presiding Officer on 24 March, 2023
2023:MHC:1399
W.P.No.2114 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.2114 of 2008
and
M.P.Nos.2, 4, 5 of 2008
and
W.M.P.No.19834 of 2018
Senthilkumar ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
The Special Court under TNPID Act,
Chennai – 104.
2.The Secretary to Government,
Home (Courts II A) Department,
Chennai.
3.The Competent authority and
Additional Commissioner
Cinema and Irrication,
Land Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai.
4.The Competent Authority and Revenue
Divisional Officer,
Trichirapalli District, Collectorate,
Trichirapalli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
W.P.No.2114 of 2008
5.The Inspector of Police,
Economic Offence Wing II,
Trichirapalli,
Cr.No:3/2000 ..Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the
G.O.Ms.No.354 and G.O.Ms.No.1300 Home (Courts II A) Department
dated 24.4.2002 and 3.12.2003 respectively passed by the 2nd respondent
and its consequential order passed by the 1st respondent in O.A.19/2002
and in O.A.24/2004 dated 30.09.2003 and 3.12.2004 respectively and quash
the same as illegal, as far as the petitioner's property is concerned bearing
S.F.No.217/4 of Edamalaipattiputhur Village in Trichy Taluk and District.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Giritharan
For R1 : Court
For R2 to R5 : Mr.T.Arunkumar
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to call for the
records pertaining to the G.O.Ms.No.354 and G.O.Ms.No.1300, Home
(Courts II A) Department dated 24.4.2002 and 3.12.2003 respectively
passed by the 2nd respondent and its consequential order passed by the 1st
respondent in O.A.19/2002 and in O.A.24/2004 dated 30.09.2003 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2114 of 2008
3.12.2004 respectively and quash the same as illegal, as far as the
petitioner's property is concerned bearing S.F.No.217/4 of
Edamalaipattiputhur Village in Trichy Taluk and District.
2. It is not in dispute that the Special Court judgment under the Tamil
Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1997 [hereinafter referred to
as 'TNPID Act'] ceased off the matter and even at the time of filing of the
writ petition, O.A.No.19 of 2002 and O.A.No.24 of 2004 were disposed of.
The order impugned passed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.354, Home
(Courts-IIA) Department dated 24.04.2002 reveals that the property
belonged to the petitioner was attached under Section 3 of the TNPID Act,
so also the other Government order issued in G.O.Ms.No.1300, Home
(Courts-II A) pertains to the amendment regarding the attachment of the
properties of the petitioner.
3. Once the issue has been ceased off under the provisions of the
TNPID Act, and the trial Court adjudicated the issues, attachment or release
of attachment is to be done through the Special Court by availing an
appropriate application for security in lieu of attachment provided under the
Government itself, the Government is competent to attach the property
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2114 of 2008
during the pendency of the proceedings instituted under the TNPID Act.
Thus, the writ petition itself is not entertainable and the petitioner has to
approach the Special Court constituted for the purpose of securing any relief
on merits and in accordance with law.
4. Unfortunately, in the present case, the petitioner is enjoying the
interim order of stay for the past about 14 years, which would cause
irreparable prejudice to the interest of the poor depositors, who had invested
their hard-earned money to private financial companies.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this
Court that the offence was compounded and the depositors were settled. It is
not made clear about the nature of settlement made in favour of the
depositors. If at all the offence has been compounded and the dues to the
depositors were settled and any other property remains, then the petitioner
has to approach the Special Court for appropriate remedy and the Writ
Court cannot conduct a roving enquiry in respect of such disputes, which
were adjudicated before the Special Court constituted under the TNPID Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2114 of 2008
6. This being the factum established, the petitioner is at liberty to
work out their remedy in the manner known to law.
7. With this liberty, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
24.03.2023
(2/2)
Index : Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation:Yes
kak
To
1.The Presiding Officer,
The Special Court under TNPID Act,
Chennai – 104.
2.The Secretary to Government,
Home (Courts II A) Department,
Chennai.
3.The Competent authority and
Additional Commissioner
Cinema and Irrication,
Land Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai.
4.The Competent Authority and Revenue
Divisional Officer,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2114 of 2008
Trichirapalli District,
Collectorate,
Trichirapalli.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Economic Offence Wing II,
Trichirapalli,
Cr.No:3/2000
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2114 of 2008
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
kak
W.P.No.2114 of 2008
(2/2)
24.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
