M.P.Murali, Aged About 58 v. The Competent Authority/
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN Writ Petition No.15913 of 2012 M.P.Murali
...Petitioner
Vs 1.The Competent Authority/ District Revenue Officer Office of the Collector of Chennai Chennai.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Economic Offences Wing-II Anna Nagar, Chennai-40.
...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 24.05.2012 and return the deposit amount with interest at Rs.2,04,700/- to the petitioner.
For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondents : Mr.Stalin Abimanyu Government Advocate
ORDER
There is no representation for the petitioner either in person or through his learned counsel.
2.According to the petitioner, he had deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/-, Rs.75,000/- and Rs.25,000/- in the years 1996, 1997 and 1998 respectively in M/s.Maruthi Finance & Maruthi Chit and Finance Co. Ltd. After maturity, the said finance company issued three cheques bearing Nos.170732, 171205 and 171235 for Rs.73,900/-, Rs.70,800/- and Rs.60,000/- respectively, totalling Rs.2,04,700/-, but requested the petitioner not to deposit the said cheques and assured him to pay the said amount in cash. However, they failed to pay the cheque amounts. When the things stood thus, the petitioner came to know that based on the complaint lodged by the depositors of the said finance company,
a case in Crime No.8 of 2000 was registered under Section 5 of TNPID Act, consequent to which, the movables and immovable properties of the said finance company and its directors were attached. Subsequently, as per the order of this Court, the respondents have been returning the deposited amounts to the depositors. Hence, the petitioner approached the respondent authorities and requested to return his deposited amount with interest to the tune of Rs.2,04,700/- pointing out that the cheques issued by the finance company were already marked as Exs.P194, P195 and P196 and he was examined as PW81 in CC No.32 of 2001 before the Special Judge under TNPID Act, Chennai. Since the said request was not considered, he made a representation dated 24.05.
2012 to the first respondent, a copy of which was addressed to the second respondent, but there was no response on the same. Therefore, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition for issuing a direction to the respondents with regard to the return of his deposited amount along with interest. 3.Today, when the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents fairly submitted that the respondent authorities would consider the representation of the petitioner and pass orders, on merits, within a reasonable time to be fixed by this Court. 4.In view of the above, there shall be a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 24.05.
2012 and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
5.With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar kj To 1.The Competent Authority/ District Revenue Officer Office of the Collector of Chennai Chennai.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Economic Offences Wing-II Anna Nagar, Chennai-40.
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.32001 W.P.No.15913 of 2012 UM(CO) RGA(11/08/2021)