The impugned order under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 lost its legal force due to the lapse of time, and the Authorities had no right to interfere with the petitioner's lawful property rights.

The issue involved in this case is covered by the Judgment of Honble Mr.Justice R.Balasubramanian, dated 06.08.2007, passed in W.P.No.21208 of 2004, in Ravichand and another Vs. The Secretary, Home Department, State of Tamil Nadu and others.

2. The G.O.Ms.No.637, Home (Courts.II A) Department, dated 06.07.02, which was impugned in the said writ petition is the same G.O. which is impugned in the present writ petition, however, in respect of the property of the petitioner viz., No.5, Flowers Road, Kilpauk, Chennai – 84, comprised in R.S.No.40/22 which was attached by way of an interim order of attachment under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 (herein after referred to as the Act).

3. According to the petitioner, the property absolutely belonged to him. However, the second respondent Competent Authority / Joint Commissioner of Land Administration, without any order of the Competent Court has come to the premises on 01.07.04 and tried to pull down the shutters of the hotel which is being run by the petitioner. The third respondent and fourth respondent Collector and Tahsildar have also come to the spot and according to the petitioner they have no right under the Revenue Recovery Act unless they are empowered under the Act.

4. According to the petitioner the Special Court has got powers to pass orders which are necessary to protect the interest of the depositors. However, the second respondent has not done the same but purposely called the persons who have noting to do with the case pending on the file of the TNPID Court to attend the meeting. But none of the persons as directed by the Court were called to the said meeting at all. In the meeting held on 14.06.04, no one was allowed to speak except stating that 214 attachments have been made through G.O and the second respondent also threatened to take drastic action against the petitioner instead of taking efforts to settle the depositors on the role of the TNPID Court.

5. The attachment made through G.O.Ms.No.637, dated 05.07.01, is questioned on various grounds including that the Chit transaction and the benefit fund transaction were not covered under the TNPID Act and the G.O. was passed mechanically, without reference to the provisions of the Act.

6. As per the Court records, the second respondent has not moved any application before the TNPID Court within the stipulated time of 30 days under Section 4(3) of the Act. Therefore, the impugned G.O. itself lapses. There is no order passed under Section 7(6) of the Act within 180 days of the alleged interim attachment of the properties. The second respondent has no powers to seize or freeze the property. Further, under Section 7(5) of the Act, attachment process is nothing but like a civil nature and therefore the issuance of the G.O. is arbitrary. The petitioner has invested huge amount and is entitled to settlement of his dues and his possession cannot be disturbed. In these circumstances, the present writ petition is filed on various legal grounds including that the original order of attachment by the Government lapsed in view of the prescription of limitation under Sections 3 & 4 of the TNPID Act.

7. It is seen in the impugned G.O. that what is issued in the G.O. is an ad interim order of attachment passed by the Special Court under the Act as per Section 3. The three companies mentioned in the impugned G.O. viz., Maruthi Finance, Madras Periamet Benefit Funds Ltd., and Sakthi Maruthi Chits and Finance are facing trial in C.C.No.32/2001 before the Special Court at Chennai. In fact, the extract of various date of hearing in the said criminal case has been made in the above said writ petition in W.P.No.21208 of 2004 in the order dated 06.08.07. It is seen that the Competent Authority has filed an Application before the Special Court in O.A.No.10 of 2001, as it is found in the above said case. The application is stated to have been signed in Septemb