JUDGMENT :

1. The matter has been heard through video conferencing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. In both the writ petitions since involved similar issue, as such, the same have been ordered to be heard together, accordingly, the matters are heard and are being disposed of by this common order.

3. The prayers have been made for direction in the nature of writ of mandamus to allow the petitioners to continue its lawful business from the concerned officer and not to interfere with in any manner in continuing the lawful business which had been sealed by the concerned authority without serving any proper notice and without giving any opportunity to the representative of the petitioners to place their defence.

4. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petitions are required to be enumerated herein which reads as hereunder:-

The petitioners’ companies (W.P.(C) No.1962 of 2013) herein are doing the business i.e., long and short term deposits, recurring, fixed deposit scheme and other financing scheme by following the lawful financing procedure from all their branches, zonal and corporate offices. So far as petitioner’s company in W.P.(C) No.3959 of 2013 is concerned, doing trades in Agro based products like Tea and Edible Oil.

The petitioners after getting necessary licenses and permissions from the competent authorities for carrying out the business in pursuance to the memorandum and articles of associations have started the business but without any complaint whatsoever and without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the authorities have taken restrainment measures by sealing the office and restraining the petitioners’ units in carrying out their business and therefore, the writ petitions have been filed.

5. It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that in absence of any complaint from any quarter, the action which has been taken by sealing the office, is not proper and such decision has been taken without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, hence, the action of the respondents being arbitrary, therefore, the direction may be passed for allowing the writ petitioners to carry out their business.

6. The State of Jharkhand, Reserve Bank of India and Securities and Exchange Board of India have put their appearance through their counsels.

7. The State of Jharkhand has filed affidavit, wherein inter-alia stand has been taken by making reference about the decision of Department of Institutional Finance and Programme Implementation, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi by issuing the guideline to all the Deputy Commissioners of the District for general supervision and inspection of the companies which are engaged in illegal activities of receiving deposits from general public on the ground of paying interest or in lieu of selling land to the depositors and also for doing financial business.

The officers, of the different districts in pursuance to the said guideline, has initiated an inquiry by issuing notice upon the respective companies to appear before the concerned authorities along with the documents but no such documents have been provided, however, reply to the show cause notice which has duly been considered by the concerned authority, reports were submitted before the Deputy Commissioner, of the concerned districts, in return, Deputy Commissioner has submitted a final inquiry report before the Commissioner North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh but in some of the cases, the Deputy Commissioner after inquiry has directed to seal the outlets of the companies and thereafter FIRs were lodged against the companies.

Further, stand has been taken that the business of receiving money from the general public was being done to misappropriate the public money by misleading them.

Respondent Nos.6 and 7 have also filed their counter Affidavit (W.P.(C) No.1962 of 2013) wherein it is stated that the company is registered under Companies’ A