Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
Integrated Rural Development Centre (IRDC) - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala - Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 12462 of 2025
Decided On : 27-05-2025
(A) Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes (BUDS) Act, 2019 - Writ petitions filed seeking mandamus for action on representations and documents - Court directed the 2nd respondent to dispose of representations within three months. (Paras 1-2)
(B) Writ of Mandamus - The court emphasized the need for timely action on representations submitted under the BUDS Act. (Paras 3-4)
Facts of the case:
The petitions sought directions for the 2nd respondent to act on various representations and documents submitted under the BUDS Act.
Findings of Court:
The court directed the 2nd respondent to dispose of the representations within three months.
Issues: The main issue was the timely consideration of representations submitted under the BUDS Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the 2nd respondent must act on the representations expeditiously, emphasizing the importance of timely administrative action.
Result: Writ petitions disposed of with directions.
JUDGMENT :
1. The above writ petitions are filed with following prayers :
W.P. (C) No. 12462 of 2025
“i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to take appropriate action on the Ext P1 to P22 as per the powers vested on him under the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes (BUDS) Act, 2019 and as per the Ext P23.
ii. Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” [sic]
W.P. (Crl) No. 299 of 2025
“i. “Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction directing the 2nd Respondent to consider Ext. P3 to P3(f) Representations and taken a decision on the same within a timeframe fixed by this Hon’ble Court;
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction directing the 2nd Respondent to initiate and take all the necessary action under the BUDS Act against Respondents Nos. 3 to 8;
iii. Grant such other reliefs, as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the given facts and circumstances of the case. iv. To dispense with the filing of translations of the vernacular documents.” [sic]
2. The prayer in these writ petitions is to consider a representation submitted by the 2nd respondent.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners learned Government Pleader also.
4. After hearing both sides, without expressing anything on merit, the representation submitted by the petitioners in these writ petitions can be directed to be disposed of by the 2nd respondent in these cases within a time frame.
5. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions :
(1) W.P. (C) No. 12462/2025 is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to dispose Exts.P1 to P22, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The petitioners will produce a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition with exhibits before the 2nd respondent for compliance.
(2) W.P. (Crl.) No. 299/2025 is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to dispose Exts.P3 to P3(f), as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The petitioners will produce a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition with exhibits before the 2nd respondent for compliance.
The court mandated timely action on representations under the BUDS Act, emphasizing the importance of administrative efficiency.
The competent authority must determine if statutory conditions for referral to the CBI under the BUDS Act are satisfied before proceeding with the investigation.
The court found a procedural violation in not issuing statutory notices for asset attachment but allowed re-evaluation of the case, emphasizing the principles of natural justice while establishing th....
The court established that provisional attachments under the Act must be confirmed within 60 days, as failure to do so results in the lapse of the attachment.
The provisions of Section 14(1) of the BUDS Act exclude the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, meaning that any delay in filing for confirmation of attachment beyond the specified period....
The court ruled that a Settlement Scheme cannot be processed until legal proceedings under the BUDS Act are resolved, emphasizing the statutory framework for handling deposit claims.
Court directs consideration of representation under BUDS Act for co-operative society deposit recovery amid financial distress.
The competent authority under the BUDS Act can issue a provisional order of attachment without an exhaustive list of properties, provided that the list is submitted within the statutory timeframe set....
The Court emphasized the necessity of considering representations against illegal operations while ensuring all parties are heard.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
