IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5732 of 2002 Between : Parimi Ramesh, S/o. Purna Chandra Rao, R/o. Nidamnauru, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Police and Addl. District Magistrate, Vijayawada Meteropolitan Area, Vijayawada. 2 The Government of A.P., Rep. by its Secretary (Home), Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned order of the 1st Respondent dated 18-3-2002 in C.NO. 112/ M. 1/2000 as illegal and violative of Sec 3 of A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act. 1999 and Consequently set aside the order of the 1st respondent as without jurisdiction. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.J.U.M.V.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order, dated 18th of March 2002, passed in Proceedings C.No.112/M.1/2002, by the Commissioner of Police and Additional District Magistrate, Vijayawada Metropolitan Area, who is notified as a competent authority under the provisions of the A.P.Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. The petitioner was the President of Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, Nidamanur in Krishna District. It was alleged by the members of the said Co- operative Society that the petitioner, being the President of the Society, has colluded with the Secretary of the said Society by name Tupakula Appa Rao, and both of them have collected fixed deposits from the members of the Society and issued fake receipts. On the complaints filed by the depositors, different crimes were registered against the petitioner and the Secretary of the Society, in Crime Nos.434 of 2001, 435 of 2001, 436 of 2001 and 437 of 2001, for the alleged offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of I.P.C., and also under Section 3 of the A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999. On the ground that the petitioner has deliberately cheated the depositors and misappropriated the funds collected from them and acquired the properties like agricultural lands and house sites, the competent authority under the provisions of the Act, has passed the impugned order to seize the properties of the petitioner i.e. the agricultural lands to an extent of Ac.1.08 cents in R.S.No.132/3 of Nidamanuru village and Ac.1.18 cents in R.S.No.126/1 of Done Atkuru village, and the building purchased by the petitioner in the name of his father in an extent of 145 square yards covered by R.S.No.151/1 of Nidamanuru village, and also the site purchased by the Secretary of the Society Sri Tupakula Appa Rao in the name of his wife Smt.T.Siva Jyothi, admeasuring 248 square yards at Yerrabalem village. 3. In this writ petition, the only argument advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner is that there is no authority or jurisdiction to the competent authority to seize the properties on his own, in the absence of any order passed by the Government to that effect, under Section 3 of the Act. It is submitted by the learned counsel that asmuch as no order is passed by the Government in exercise of powers under Section 3 of the Act, the order passed by the respondent/competent authority for seizing his properties, is illegal and arbitrary. 4. Before I consider the said submission of the learned counsel, it is to be noted from the objects and reasons of the Act, namely, the A.P.Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999, that when several instances have come to the notice of the Government that number of financial establishments in the State are cheating the innocent and gullible depositors by collecting huge deposits from them and vanishing suddenly, to curb such malpractices and to protect the interests of depositors, the Act was brought into force. Under the scheme of the Act, either on the complaint from a depositor or when the Government have reason to believe that any financial establishment is acting in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the depositors, it is empowered to pass an order for attaching the properties of such establishment and transfer the control over said attached properties or money, to the competent authority. In exercise of Rule making power under Section 18 of the Act, Rules were framed under the said Act in G.O.Ms.No.347, dated 29.10.1999. Under Rule 6 of the Rules, the competent authority is empowered to seize the property which is liable to be attached under the Act, if the controlling authority comes to the conclusion that such property is being transferred or is likely to be concealed. 5. The power under Rule 6 of the Rules is the power to protect the property and for immediate action pending passing of attachment orders by the Government under Section 3 of the Act. In that view of the matter, I do not find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel for petitioner that the impugned order is illegal for want of passing an order by the Government to seize the property. The power of seizure is conferred on the competent authority for protecting the properties which are likely to be transferred or concealed before steps are being taken for attachment under Section 3 of the Act. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the argument of the learned counsel for petitioner, so as to accept the same. 6. As no other ground is raised in the writ petition, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 1st June 2009 ajr