.{1}. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2346 OF 2007 The Kapol Co-operative Bank Ltd., ..Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors. ..Respondents. .. Mr.S.G.Rajput, Adv. for the Petitioner. Smt.P.H.Kantharia, APP, for the State. .. CORAM : S.B.MHASE AND CORAM : S.B.MHASE AND CORAM : S.B.MHASE AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATED : JANUARY 29, 2008. DATED : JANUARY 29, 2008. DATED : JANUARY 29, 2008. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. Heard. 2. The property of the petitioner has been attached under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act,1999. The petitioner claims in this Petition that the notification issued under the Act dated 9th October, 2003 may be quashed and set-aside and so also the order dated 10.10.2007 passed by the Sessions Court in Misc.Application No.91 of 2007 in MPID Special Case No.14 of 2002 from the file of the Sessions .{2}. Court of Greater Bombay may be quashed and set-aside. 3. The MPID Act has already been declared unconstitutional by this Court. The matter is pending before the Supreme Court. The orders of the Supreme Court were brought to our notice passed in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No.406-409 of 2004. The Apex Court has observed that, "In cases where investigations are in progress the prosecution agency shall continue with the investigation. But there shall not be further prosecutions of the accused persons and as regards pending cases the status-quo as on today shall be maintained. It is submitted that in nine cases already accused persons have been convicted and the convicted persons would be at liberty to apply for bail and the Court would be at liberty to pass order granting bail. The interim attachment granted by the competent authority shall subsist until further orders. However, in cases where the applications for release of attachment have been filed the same would be disposed of in accordance with Law by separate orders. There shall not be sale of attached properties. The Authorities shall not take any .{3}. coercive steps to recover the amount under the Act." 4. In view of the above order, the attachment will subsist and the property cannot be put to sale. No coercive action can be taken as against the petitioner. So far as the release of the property of the attachment is considered, we find that the Apex Court has found that if the applications are made these applications should be disposed of in accordance with law by separate orders. However, it is expected that when the Supreme Court has passed order the application for release was already made and pending before the Court. In the present matter, the application for release of the property under attachment was not pending when the Apex Court passed the order. It was subsequently made and, therefore, the Court was not entitled to consider and dispose of the said application as per the Apex Court directions. According to us the attachment continues as per the Apex Court order and no coercive action can be taken as against the petitioner. And therefore the writ petition challenging the said order and notification is not tenable. Petition is hereby rejected. .{4}. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [S.B.MHASE,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [S.B.MHASE,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [S.B.MHASE,J.]