The High Court will not interfere with the merits of a provisional attachment under the Telangana State Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishment Act, 1999, if the matter is pending before the competent court, but may direct the trial court to dispose of the proceedings expeditiously.

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“…To issue an appropriate order, writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring that the G.O.Rt.No.1512, Home(Passport) Department, dated 22.11.2017 stands revoked as the interim order of attachment is not made absolute as per the time stipulated u/s 4 of the Telangana State Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishment Act, 1999 and be set aside the same or alternatively direct the 2nd and 3rd Respondents to initiate steps u/s 4 of the Telangana State Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishment Act, 1999 as per G.O.Rt. No. 1512, Home (Passport) Department, dated 22.11.2017 to enable the petitioner to enforce its claim in respect of mortgaged properties mentioned under the proceedings dated 22.11.2017 to recover the public debt as per law………

2. Heard M/s. E. Madan Mohan Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondents Nos.1 to 3.

3.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, in view of the time stipulation prescribed under Section 4 of the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (for short, ‘the Act’), the Government Order in G.O.Rt. No.1512, Home (Passport) Department, dated 22.11.2017, would lapse if the order of interim attachment is not made absolute within the prescribed period. On that premise, the present writ petition has been filed seeking appropriate directions.

3.2. He further submits that the petitioner, being a secured creditor, has a subsisting claim over the properties which were mortgaged in its favour. It is contended that making the order of provisional attachment absolute would enable the petitioner to proceed in accordance with law to realize the mortgage dues, subject to the scheme of the Act and priority of claims as adjudicated by the competent court.

3.3. Learned counsel further submits that this Court, having earlier considered the matter, directed the trial Court to dispose of Crl.M.P. No.1304 of 2016 expeditiously, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. However, the said petition continues to remain pending for reasons not attributable to the petitioner. Hence, he prays for appropriate directions, including for making the interim attachment absolute or, in the alternative, for expeditious disposal of the pending proceedings.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the petition seeking to make the attachment absolute is still pending before the trial Court and that the prosecution itself is pursuing such relief. He further submits that the claim over the provisionally attached properties was earlier challenged in W.P. No.15747 of 2019, which came to be dismissed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to work out its remedies before the trial Court. Accordingly, he seeks appropriate orders.

5. I have perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

6. The petitioner is a banking institution asserting mortgage rights over certain properties which were provisionally attached by the Government vide G.O.Rt. No.1512 in Crime No.492 of 2015, registered under the provisions of the Act. It is evident from the record that the prosecution has already filed an application, being Crl.M.P. No.4903 of 2019, seeking to make the interim attachment absolute. The petitioner, as a secured creditor, is also asserting i