The Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Subhash Reddy Writ Petition No.22640 of 2001 Order: Petitioner-Mamatha Chit Fund Private Limited filed this Writ Petition challenging the Order of the respondent- Government issued in G.O.Ms.No.159 Home (General-B) Department, dated 9th July, 2001. The Government, in exercise of powers under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors and Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (for short ‘the Act’), passed the aforesaid order attaching certain properties of the petitioner-Mamata Chit Fund Private Limited Company and Saritha Finance as detailed in the annexure thereto. Under Section 3 of the Act, whenever a complaint is received from a depositor to the effect that any Financial Establishment defaulted or is likely to default in return of deposits in cash or kind after maturity, and if the Government is satisfied that such Financial Establishment is not likely to return the deposit, the Government, in order to protect the interests of the depositors, can pass an ad interim order attaching the money or the property alleged to have been procured, in the name of such Financial Establishment or in the name of any other person, from and out of the deposits collected by such Financial Establishment. On receipt of the Order passed under Section 3 of the Act, it is obligatory on the part of the Competent Authority, notified under Section 4 of the Act, to apply to the Special Court constituted under the Act to make the ad interim order of attachment absolute. In this Writ Petition, the only argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner- Mamata Chit Fund Private Limited is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and as such, it is not a ‘Financial Establishment’ within the meaning of the Act. It is further submitted by learned Counsel that there is no authority or competency for the Government to invoke the provisions under Section 3 of the Act and to pass the impugned order of attachment. On behalf of the respondent, a detailed counter- affidavit is filed by the Assistant Secretary to Government, Home Department, denying various allegations made by the petitioner. It is stated therein that Sri K.Narasimha Rao is the Managing Director of Mamatha Chit Fund (P) Limited and sole proprietor of M/s.Saritha Financiers; and that he has collected deposits from about 1500 depositors in the name of M/s.Saritha Financiers and did not return the same after maturity; and that he has purchased as many as 14 properties in and around Hyderabad, out of the public money collected and mortgaged the said land to several Banks and obtained loans. Consequently, it is stated that M/s.Saritha Financiers is not a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and as such, there is no illegality in issuing the impugned GO. Though as per the definition of ‘Financial Establishment’, defined under Section 2 (c) of the Act, Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, cannot be construed as a Financial Establishment, it is to be seen that the impugned GO was issued attaching the properties pertaining to the petitioner-Company and Saritha Finance, Hyderabad. In view of the specific averment made in the counter- affidavit that Sri K.Narasimha Rao has collected deposits from about 1500 depositors in the name of the Saritha Financiers, which is not a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, the petitioner-Mamatha Chit Fund (P) Limited cannot question the impugned GO on the ground that it is registered under the Companies Act. In any event, GO.Ms.No.159, dated 09-07-2001, issued by the respondent-Government is an ad interim order of attachment. If the petitioner-Mamatha Chit Fund (P) Limited has any objections thereto, it can approach the Special Court for redressal thereof. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the impugned GO so as to invalidate the same. The Writ Petition, is therefore, dismissed keeping it open to the petitioner-Mamatha Chit Fund (P) Limited to raise its objections before the Special Court constituted under the Act. No order as to costs. _________________ R.Subhash Reddy, J Dated 16th November, 2009 lur