1. This writ petition is filed seeking for a declaration that the information-cum-service/collection centers set up by the petitioner in the State of Kerala in respect of chits registered in Maharashtra does not amount to opening a new place of business within the meaning of Section 19(4) of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 (for short 'the Act') and for a declaration that the petitioner need not register their chit which is already registered in the State of Maharashtra and for a further direction to respondents 5 and 6 not to take any coercive steps or register any crime against the petitioner for running the collection centre of their chit.

2. The facts involved in this case would disclose that the petitioner company is running a chit under the name and style Sheeba Finance and Kurries Ltd., which is a company registered in the State of Maharashtra. According to them, all chits are commenced and conducted from the registered office at Pune in accordance with the Chit Fund Act, 1982 and the Maharashtra Chit Fund Rules, 2004. Since their business expanded considerably, they have arranged for services like enquiry, door to door service to the customers and for establishment of collection centres of the chit amount from the States where the subscribers reside. They have therefore started information-cum-collection centres at Kochi, Kottayam and Melkulangara in the State of Kerala. This information-cum- collection centres, according to them, are neither branch office or sub office or a place of business where the chit is commenced and conducted by the petitioner. It is contended that the said centres do not conduct any chit nor it enrolls customers.

3. It is stated that on 19.5.2014, an inspection was conducted in the collection centre and certain documents had been seized. According to the petitioner, such action was totally illegal as the petitioner was not conducting any chit in the State of Kerala. Further, on 27.5.2014, the 5th respondent conducted another raid in the Ernakulam collection centre of the petitioner and seized cash and other materials. Officers of the petitioner company, including Managing Director, were arrested on the ground that office being conducted by the petitioner is illegal and thereafter released on bail. It is contended by the petitioner that respondents have no authority to take action against the petitioner as the petitioner is a validly registered chit company and does not have any office in the State of Kerala.

4. It is contended that the centres opened by the petitioner in the State of Kerala are only for information and collection of subscription amount and therefore the office does not come within the purview of Section 19 of the Act.

5. A statement is filed on behalf of the 4th respondent inter alia stating that on inspection of the branches of the petitioner, it is seen that the petitioner is doing chit business including execution of agreement and other documents and receipt of money at their branches including those at Kochi, Kottayam and Melkulangara. According to the respondent, they are conducting chit business in State of Kerala, which is in violation of the provisions of the Act and prohibited under Section 4 of the Act. The petitioner is liable to be prosecuted under Sections 76 and 79 of the Act. Further, they referred to Section 82(2) of the Act to indicate that police has power to enter and search any place where it is found that the business of chit is conducted in contravention of the provisions of the Act as contemplated under Section 82(2) of the Act. It is further stated that if there is any violation of the provisions of the Act, the same shall be done only after complying with Rule 64 of the Kerala Chit Funds Rules, 2012.

6. The petitioner has filed a reply inter alia stating that the provisions of Section 82(1) shall not apply and police has no power unless there is a direction from the Registrar.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Gove