Lata Devi Dixit vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 7058 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 7058 Raj
Judgement Date : 12 September, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Lata Devi Dixit vs State Of Rajasthan on 12 September, 2023

Bench: Nupur Bhati

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9159/2020

Lata Devi Dixit W/o Mahesh Kumar Vyas, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Bhuvneshwari Colony, Dungarpur (Raj).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Registrar, Co-Operative Department, Nehru Sahakar Bhawan, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur (Raj).

2. The Competent Authority Under The Banning Of Unregularised Deposit Scheme Act Cum Registrar, Co- Operative Department, Nehru Sahakar Bhawan, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur (Raj).

3. The Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Agriculture And Farmer Welfare, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi.

4. The Central Registrar, Department Of Agriculture, Cooperation And Farmers Welfare, Ministry Of Agriculture And Farmer Welfare, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi.

5. Adarsh Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd, Adarsh Bhawan -

14, Vidhya Vihar Colony, Usmanpura, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad Through Its Managing Director And Ceo.

6. Governor Reserve Bank Of India, Central Office Building, 18Th Floor, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Mumbai 400 001.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Paramveer Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, Dy. S.G.

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI Order

12/09/2023

1. The present writ petition has been preferred claiming the

following reliefs:-

"a). The respondent authorities be directed to initiate proceedings under the Provisions of Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act 2019 and the property

(2 of 5) [CW-9159/2020]

of the respondent society be attached under the provisions of the Act to secure the deposits of the petitioner.

b). That the respondents be directed to release the deposits made by the petitioner with the respondent Adarsh Society as mentioned in para No.3 of the writ petition, along with interest of 18% per annum upto the date of actual payment.

c). The petitioner be awarded adequate compensation from the respondents against the inconvience, mental agony and pain suffered by him.

d). Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper be passed in favour of the petitioner.

e) That the petitioner be awarded cost of litigation."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

had deposited his amount in the Adarsh Credit Cooperative

Society Limited and his claim for such amount ought to be settled

by the respondents on count of the fact that the assets of the such

society ought to be utilized for reimbursing the lawful depositors.

3. Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, learned Deputy Solicitor General

appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that a coordinate

Bench at Jaipur Bench in the case of Dipesh Mishra & Ors.Vs.

Union of India & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.21066/2019) decided on 11.07.2022 alongwith other

connected matters, has already dismissed the claim of the

depositors on count of the fact that an attachment order was

passed by the Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India

and, therefore, the complete assets of the society in question are

subject to that attachment of the properties of the society passed

(3 of 5) [CW-9159/2020]

under sub-Section (1) of Section 5 of the Prevention of Money

Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, "the PMLA"). He further submits

that unless the attachment is done away with any consequential

relief at this stage is not permissible to the present petitioners. It

is also informed by learned Dy. Solicitor General that proper

appeals are already pending for adjudication before the appellate

Tribunal and it shall be open for the depositors to join in before

the forum/appellate Tribunal in question, so as to agitate his claim

for reimbursement of his invested amount.

4. The operative portion of the order passed in Dipesh Mishra &

Ors.Vs. Union of India & Ors. (Supra) reads as follows:-

"I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. This Court finds that in the present bunch of petitions, the petitioners are feeling aggrieved against the letter as well as provisional attachment order which have been issued by the Authority. This Court, finds that after filing of writ petitions, the Authorities have passed order, under Section 8 of the Act of 2002, and as such, the final attachment order has been issued. This Court, finds that none of the petitioners have ever made any application in their petitions for amendment, and as such, this Court has to consider as whether these writ petitions can be heard by this Court in view of final attachment orders, which have already been passed by the Authorities on 31.03.2020. This Court, finds that the relief sought in the present writ petitions, cannot be granted by this Court as their final attachment orders are not under challenge. This Court finds substance in the submissions of learned ASG-Mr. R.D. Rastogi that the relief which has been sought in these writ petitions cannot be granted to the petitioners. This Court further

(4 of 5) [CW-9159/2020]

finds that during pendency of the writ petitions, if the final attachment order has been issued and the petitioners feel aggrieved against such order, then they are required to take necessary remedy to assail the same orders under the law. This Court, accordingly, dismiss these writ petitions with liberty to the petitioners to take appropriate legal remedy for challenging the subsequent orders, which have been passed by the Authority, wherein final attachment orders have been passed. The issue of locus and jurisdiction raised by the respondents before the Appellate Forum, can always be decided after hearing both the parties as per law. A copy of this order be separately placed in each petition."

5. This Court in the case of Dipesh Mishra & Ors.Vs. Union of

India & Ors. (Supra) has also held that it is not the correct remedy

at this stage to approach this Court in the writ jurisdiction, as

there is an appropriate remedy under Section 26 of the PLMA.

6. Upon such submissions having been made, this Court is

conscious of the fact that earlier orders were being passed for

making representation to the liquidator by the depositors for their

respective claims, but the turn of events and particularly, the

judgment of this Hon'ble Court as well as the proposition under

the PMLA, which includes attachment and the adjudication before

the appellate Tribunal, does not call for any interference at this

stage.