Sachin Marotrao Khade And 10 Others v. State Of Maharashtra, Through The Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai And 6 Others
1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.390 OF 2014 (Sachin Marotrao Khade and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.
Shri K.S. Narwade, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri T.A. Mirza, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent nos.1, 2 and 8.
-------- CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI AND P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATED : AUGUST 3, 2015 Heard learned Counsel for the rival parties. Perused the earlier orders made by this Court.
The first grievance made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that in terms of Sections 4 and 5 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999, `Competent Authority' in multiple numbers cannot be appointed as that would lead to confusion.
2/3 We have perused Section 5(1) of the said Act and we find therefrom that the said provision does not put any restriction that only one Competent Authority can be appointed and not in multiples. On the contrary, we find that appointment of multiple Competent Authorities in order to have control over the properties, deposits, etc. in different areas of the State would be more convenient and in the interest of depositors rather than appointing only one Competent Authority, which would face hurdles in ultimately satisfying the object of the said Act. The second submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is about non issuance of notification in the Official Gazette under Section 4(1)(ii) of the said Act.
We find that notification under Section 4(1)(ii) of the said Act is required to be issued depending upon result of the investigation and it is a continuous process to issue notification as and when needed in a particular area. The third submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is about not constituting `Designated Court'.
3/3 the said aspect open since we do not believe that there is no `Designated Court' appointed as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The criminal writ petition is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE khj