The petitioner challenges the orders passed by the first and second respondent respectively which led to the sealing of the hotel premises, which was under his occupation, namely Hotel Swagath (Hotel Senthil Residency) situated at Adiyavithu Village, Dindigul East Taluk and for a consequential direction to the respondents to remove the seal and handover possession of the hotel premises to him pending disposal of I.A. No. 3 of 2016 in O.A. No. 19 of 2011 on the file of Special Court under TNPID Act, Madurai.

2. The brief facts of the case which are germane and necessary for disposal of this writ petition are as follows:-

(i) The petitioner has taken the premises in question on lease from M/s. Ravi and Company Bankers, a financial company during the year 2000 for a lease rent of Rs.50,000/- per month which was renewed during the year 2001. The lease amount was to be paid to the first respondent with an agreement to deposit the lease rent to the credit of O.A. No. 19 of 2011. Subsequently, the owner of the hotel premises agreed to settle the dues to the depositors and with such an intention, they have sold the hotel premises to the petitioner by executing a registered sale deed dated 11.08.2013 for a sale consideration of Rs.1,15,00,000/- besides agreeing to settle the 297 depositors who are required to be settled by them. Even before such sale, the hotel premises was under interim attachment by the Government in GO Ms. No.1368, Home (Courts-1A) Department dated 18.12.2000 so as to realise the amount payable to various depositors. According to the petitioner, after such purchase, even though the petitioner settled the dues payable to the 296 depositors out of 297, except one depositor by name, Ramakrishnan, the first respondent compelled and coerced the petitioner to deposit more amount. Therefore, the petitioner made deposits month after month which has accrued to Rs.22,08,355/-.

(ii) During the year 2006, contending that the entire amount has been settled to the depositors, the petitioner stopped paying the lease amount to the first respondent. Immediately, the second respondent sealed the hotel premises on 02.09.2006. Thereafter, at the instance of the petitioner, a meeting was convened by the first respondent in the presence of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Economic Offence Wing, Dindigul; the second respondent and other depositors. During the course of such meeting an enquiry was conducted directly with the depositors and during such enquiry, the petitioner produced records, including acknowledgments made by the depositors as a proof of settlement of the dues paid to 297 depositors. According to the petitioner, the settlement was made to the depositors in the presence of an Advocate and Commissioner of Oaths by name Mr. Rafic. During the enquiry, the second respondent also made personal enquiry with the depositors and most of the depositors have stated that their dues were settled. Such statements recorded during the course of enquiry were reduced into a form of report by the second respondent and it was sent to the first respondent. Therefore, on being satisfied that there is no necessity to keep the property under attachment, the respondents 1 and 2 have raised the attachment of the hotel premises in exercise of their power conferred under Section 7(6) of The Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1987 (hereinafter called as the TNPID Act). Thereafter, possession of the hotel premises was also handed over to the petitioner. While raising the order of attachment, as required by the respondents 1 and 2, the petitioner undertook to pay the dues to the depositors, if any, found in future.

(iii) According to the petitioner, inspite of the above, the first respondent filed O.A. No. 19 of 2011 before the Special Court under the TNPID Act to make the attachment absolute and it was allowed by the Special Court on 18.06.2014. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed CMA No. 807 of