Government's failure to record reasons does not invalidate property attachment when supported by substantial evidence of irregularities, and responsibility for property protection lies with authorities.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner has challenged a notification dated 19th January 2017 issued by the Government of Tripura in exercise of powers under Section 4 (1)(ii) of the Tripura Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 2000 (hereinafter to be referred to as the "Act of 2000") attaching several properties of the petitioner-company. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to protect the attached moveable and immovable properties till appropriate orders are passed by the designated Court. The third prayer made by the petitioner is for carrying out the valuation of the properties which valuation may be produced before the Court.

2. Brief facts are as under :

Petitioner as a company registered under Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of hospitality related industry in the name of Rose Valley Hotels and Entertainment Ltd. In the course of its business, the petitioner company had received deposits from several individuals. The petitioner had also acquired immoveable properties from such deposits. The petitioner had established an amusement park in the vicinity of the city of Agartala. The business activities of the company, however, ran into several legal disputes. A detailed reference would be made to some of these dispute sat a later stage. For the moment, it may be noted that initially Securities and Exchange Board of India(SEBI) found it objectionable that the company was accepting deposits and acting like a Non-Banking Financial Company(NBFC) without proper licences. SEBI therefore, prohibited the petitioner-company from carrying out certain activities. Police complaints were also filed against the petitioner for alleged fraudulent acts in receiving deposits by making false promises and claims of returns. Prohibitory orders were also issued by the Government of Tripura in exercise of powers of the Act of 2000. Eventually, by the impugned notification, the Government of Tripura attached all immoveable and moveable properties of the petitioner-company upon which the petitioner has filed the present petition.

3. Appearing for the petitioner learned senior counsel Mr. B N Majumder raised following contentions :

(i) The impugned notification is bad in law since no reasons are recorded by the competent authority before passing the order. Even otherwise, there was no material before the said authority to form a belief that the powers for attachment of the property were required to be exercised.

(ii) The State-authorities having attached the properties, failed to protect the same from theft and pilferage. As a result, moveable properties and attachments at the sites have been stolen away by the members of the public, thereby diminishing the value of the property. He contended that it was the duty of the State-authorities to protect the attached properties.

(iii) Counsel submitted that the total valuation of the properties of the company is much higher than the outstanding dues of the creditors and depositors. It is, therefore, necessary that the current valuation of the property be carried out and placed before the Court.

4. The respondents have appeared and filed replies. The stand taken in such replies, broadly stated, is as under :

(i) There were multiple proceedings initiated against the company suggesting that the company had misled the members of the public in order to receive deposits. This was carried on without proper licences and despite prohibition from SEBI and the Government of Tripura. There was enough material before the competent authority to form a belief that power of attachment under the Act of 200 was required to be exercised.

(ii) The State-authorities have taken steps to protect the properties from any loss or damage. Various steps taken by the State-authorities are brought on record.

(iii) The stand of the respondents also is that proceedings are pending before different Designated Courts. The question of valuation, therefore, cannot be gone into righ