Point of Law - It is well settled proposition of law that a litigant has no vested right in the matter of procedural laws or alternation in procedural laws, which generally are held to be retrospective in the sense that they apply to future as well as to pending actions.

ORDER:

Satish Chandra Sharma, J.

1. Both the writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order as the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same.

2. The petitioners before this Court have filed the present writ petitions challenging the validity of G.O.Ms.No.99, dated 05.09.2018 issued by the State of Telangana amending Rule 5(2) of the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishment Rules, 1999 (for short, the Rules) validating with retrospective effect in respect of all prosecutions launched under the provisions of the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishment Act, 1999 (for short, Act No.17 of 1999) to the effect of empowering any Police Officer not below the rank of Inspector of Police to launch prosecution under the Act No.17 of 1999 and the Rules framed thereunder.

3. The petitioners’ contention is that the amendment, which has been made with retrospective effect, is arbitrary, illegal and ultra vires the Act No.17 of 1999 offending Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It has been further contended that the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh enacted the Act No.17 of 1999 to protect the deposits made by the public in financial establishments and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The State of Telangana after its formation in exercise of powers conferred under Section 101 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 issued a G.O.Ms.No.81, Home (Legal) Department, dated 21.05.2016 adapting the aforesaid Act without any modifications. It has been further contended that in the year 2002, Sri Bhale Rao, IAS, Registrar of Cooperative Societies, lodged a complaint before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Investigation Department (CID)/third respondent in respect of irregularities relating to disbursement of loans by the elected board officials of Charminar Cooperative Urban Bank Limited. It was alleged that the Management has played fraud and has committed misappropriation and consequently, a crime was registered vide F.I.R.No.3 of 2002, dated 25.02.2002 under Section 5 of the Act No.17 of 1999 read with Sections 420 and 409 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). It has been further stated that initially the Sub Inspector of Police registered the crime and later on the Deputy Superintendent of Police (City Zone), Crime Investigation Department, Hyderabad has carried out the investigation and filed charge sheet and the Metropolitan Sessions Judge took cognizance under Section 5 of the Act No.17 of 1999 read with Sections 120B, 420, 409 IPC registering a case vide Calendar Case No.6 of 2002.

4. The petitioners have further stated that as per the definition clause as contained under Section 2(a) of the Act No.17 of 1999, the ‘competent authority’ means the authority appointed under Section 4 of the Act and Section 4 of the Act empowers the Government to appoint an authority to perform the functions of the competent authority for the purposes of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The petitioners further stated that the Government appointed and designated District Magistrates of all the Districts and the Commissioners of Police in respect of the cities Hyderabad, Visakhapatnam and Vijayawada as ‘competent authority’ for the purposes of various functions under the Act and the Rules. The petitioners further stated that the investigation relating to such offences were also being handed over to the Crime Investigation Department and the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.193, dated 23.08.2001 designating Additional Director General of Police, CID or Inspector General of Police, CID as competent authority in respect of cases investigated by CID. The petitioners further stated that the Additional Director General of Police, CID, which is the competent authority to initiate further steps under the Act No.17 of 1999 and the Rules, is also vested with powers of control in respect of properties sought to be attached under the Act as well as