Disposed

Sampath v. Vs State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Sept 2022WP(C)/17439/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, via a single-line order, directed the competent authority to permit the petitioner to file representations within two weeks regarding the handover of vacant possession of a building sealed under the BUDS Act, with orders to be passed within three months.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to petitioner to file representations before the competent authority within two weeks; authority to pass appropriate orders within three months.

Sampath v Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 28TH BHADRA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 17439 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

SAMPATH V
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O. VITTOBA, VARADAM, KRISHNA NAGAR,
NEYYATTINKARA P.O, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. PIN: 695 121.
BY ADVS.
RINU. S. ASWAN
S.SUDHEESH

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY (COMPETENT AUTHORITY DESIGNED
AS PER BUDS ACT, 2019), HAVING OFFICE AT HOME
DEPARTMENT, MAIN BLOCK, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM
DISTRICT-695 001.

¶10

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, 2ND FLOOR CIVIL STATION BUILDING, CIVIL STATION ROAD, TRIVANDRUM. 695043

¶11

3 THE TAHSILDAR, OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, HOSPITAL JUNCTION, NEYYATTINKARA P.O, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. 695121

¶12

4 M/S. MARY RANI POPULAR NIDHI LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, DR. RINU MARIAM THOMAS, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT XIII/526E, POPULAR TOWER ANNEXE, VAKAYAR P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA. 689 69

¶13

GP – ADV. RAJEEV AND JYOTHISH GEORGE

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 17439 OF 2022

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT Dated this the 19^th day of September, 2022

¶18

The petitioner had let out his building on rent to M/s Popular Finance Ltd. While so, proceedings under the Kerala Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2013 and the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes, 2019 (‘the BUDS Act’, for short) were initiated against M/S Popular Finance Ltd and its sister concerns. On the direction of the District Collector, who is the authorised officer under the BUDS Act, the buildings, branches and offices of M/s. Popular Finance and sister concerns were brought under lock and key, after attaching the cash, gold and documents. The premises let out by the petitioner was also sealed. Even though inventory of the articles and valuables was prepared, vacant possession of the premises is not returned to the petitioner, despite repeated requests Hence, this writ petition, seeking a direction to hand over vacant possession of the building to

¶19

WP(C) NO. 17439 OF 2022

¶20

¶21

the petitioner.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, inventory of the movables having been prepared there is no justification in keeping the building under lock and key. The building is unoccupied for more than a year and the petitioner is being deprived of rent. It is submitted that in similar cases, this Court had directed the competent authority to hand over vacant possession of the buildings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after complying with the formalities under Sections 14 and 15 of the BUDS Act.

¶23

Learned Government Pleader submitted that almost 43 tenanted premises occupied by M/S Popular Finance and its sister concerns are under lock and key in Kollam District and 22 such premises are under lock and key in Kottayam District. It is submitted that shifting of the movables and assets to another location is extremely difficult at the moment, but steps in that regard are being

¶24

WP(C) NO. 17439 OF 2022

¶25

4

¶26

taken. It is pointed out that in the cases referred by the petitioners’ counsel, the Government has sought extension of time by another six months, for handing over vacant possession.

¶27

The petitioner's grievance appears to be genuine.

¶28

Hence, the competent authority under the BUDS Act is bound to take earnest efforts to redress his grievance at the earliest.

¶29

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, permitting the petitioner to file representations before the competent authority within two weeks. Thereupon, the authority shall pass appropriate orders within three months.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE

RK

WP(C) NO. 17439 OF 2022

¶35

¶36

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17439/2022

¶37

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶38

`Exhibit P1`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED IN THE` `NAME OF THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE` `TAX RECEIPT DATED.22.10.19`
`Exhibit P2`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT` `ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND` `THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 02.02.19`
`Exhibit P3`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED` `BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 06.12.20`
`Exhibit P4`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE` `COMPETENT AUTHORITY & SECRETARY,` `CENTRAL BUDS ACT, 2019 DATED 16.11.21`
`Exhibit P5`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR ALONG WITH` `REPORT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED NIL` `ISSUED AS PER RTI ACT, 2005`
`Exhibit P6`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT GIVEN BY` `THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT` `DATED 24.11.2021`
`Exhibit P7`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT GIVEN BY` `THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT` `DATED 15.01.2022`
`Exhibit P8`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS` `HON'BLE COURT IN W.P (C) NO. 8224 OF` `2022 AND ITS CONNECTED MATTERS DATED` `24.03.22`

Sampath v. Vs State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sampath v. Vs State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.P. Somakumar Vs Maben Nidhi Limited

Chandran K. Vs State of Kerala

P.R.Jayaprakash Vs State of Kerala

Krishna Kumar.S Vs the State of Kerala

Xxxxx Vs District Magistrate

Thomas Tharian Vs the District Magistrate