Disposed

Ramakrishna Pillai v. Vs State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Aug 2022WP(Crl.)/686/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala directed the Competent Authority and District Police Chief to expedite consideration of complaints regarding alleged unregulated deposit collection under the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019, setting strict timelines for action.

What did the court decide?

The 2nd respondent directed to consider complaints P1 and P1(a) within two months; the 3rd respondent directed to consider complaint P3 and act under Section 29 within one month.

Ramakrishna Pillai v. Vs State of Kerala — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(Crl.).No.686/22

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. TUESDAY, THE 23^RD DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 1ST BHADRA, 1944 WP(CRL.) NO. 686 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI V., AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.VASUDEVAN PILLAI, SHREYAS, SASTHAMCOTTA P O, KUNNATHUR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-690 521.

¶8

2 SREEJA G.S., AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.SREEKUMAR M.S., PUTHUVILA, KARTHIKAPALLY P O, KUNNATHUR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-690 520.

¶9

BY ADVS. JACOB P.ALEX JOSEPH P.ALEX MANU SANKAR P. AMAL AMIR ALI

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN 695 001.

¶12

2 COMPETENT AUTHORITY, (UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE BANINING OF UNREGULATED DEPOSIT, SCHEMES ACT, 2019) SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN 695 001.

¶13

W.P.(Crl.).No.686/22

¶14

¶15

3 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, (RURAL) KOLLAM,

¶16

KOTTAKKARA PO, KOLLAM PIN 691 506.

¶17

4 M/S.HOLY TRINITY TRUST, REG. NO.215/2009, THEVALAKKARA P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT., PIN 690524. [REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN MR. JAYAKUMAR, S/O. SUDHAKARARI, MADATHIL CHITTOOR, PANMANA P.O, CHAVARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT - PIN:- 691 583]

¶18

5 MR.JAYAKUMAR, S/O.SUDHAKARAN, MADATHIL CHITTOOR, PANMANA P.O. CHAVARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT-PIN 691 583.

¶19

6 MR.ANAND, S/O.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI, MANASERIL, KALARI, PANMANA, CHAVARA P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 583.

¶20

7 MR.ANIL KUMAR, S/O.VELAPPAN NAIR, THONDALI VEEDU, CHERUSSERRYBHAGOM, PANMANA, CHAVARA P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN 691 583.

¶21

8 MR.PRAMOD. R,

¶22

S/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, PONNATUVILA, MEKKADU, PANMANA, CHAVARA P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN- 691 583.

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(Crl.).No.686/22

J U D G M E N T

The petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

¶28

“i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction commanding the 2^nd respondent to take necessary action on Exhibits P1 and P1(a) in accordance with law under the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 and relevant Rules thereunder within a timelimit to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court;

¶29

ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction commanding the 2^nd respondent to provisionally attach assets of 4^th respondent and others, Scheduled in Exhibit P1, in terms with Section 7(3) of the BUDS Act and Relevant Rules and to take further steps;

¶30

iii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction commanding the 3^rd respondent to take necessary action on Exhibit P3 in accordance with law;”

¶31

The grievance of the petitioners is that the 4^th respondent trust and the respondents 5 to 8 who are the trustees of the 4^th respondent, have collected an amount of Rs.15,00,000/from the 1^st petitioner and Rs.14,00,000/- from the 2^nd petitioner as deposits offering high returns. Later, returns, as offered by them, were not provided and the amounts were also not returned. The

¶32

W.P.(Crl.).No.686/22

¶33

¶34

case of the petitioner is that the collection of the said amount as deposits and soliciting for such deposits are attracting the provisions contained in the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (BUDS Act) and, therefore, liable to be proceeded against as per the same. Highlighting the said grievance, the petitioner submitted Exts.P1 and P1(a) complaints before the 2^nd respondent, which is the competent authority constituted under Section 7 of the BUDS Act. Similarly, Ext.P3 complaint was submitted before the 3^rd respondent for initiating prosecution against the respondents 4 to 8 under the Provisions of the BUDS Act. The writ petition was filed in such circumstances, as, according to them, no proper actions are being taken up by either of the said respondents.

¶35

Heard Sri.Jacob P. Alex, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.M.P.Prasanth, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶36

The specific case of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that Section 7(3) contemplates broad powers on the competent authority or the officers appointed under Sub Section 2 of Section 7 of the Act, to proceed against the person who accepts deposits in violation of the provisions of the BUDS Act and to attach the aforesaid deposits, being satisfied with the illegality in

¶37

W.P.(Crl.).No.686/22

¶38

¶39

accepting such deposits. It is the specific case of the learned counsel that the deposits which were collected from the petitioners would come within the definition of ‘unregulated deposit scheme’ as defined under Sub Section 2 of Section 7 of the BUDS Act. The collection of such deposits is strictly prohibited under Section 3 of the BUDS Act. Therefore, there is a clear violation of the statutory provisions which warrants proceedings under Section 7(3) of the Act. According to him, even though these aspects were specifically highlighted before the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents, no actions are being taken. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submits that the complaint of the petitioner is being considered by the 2^nd respondent/competent authority, and a decision as to whether the proceedings under the provisions of the BUDS Act are to be taken or not will be taken very soon.

¶40

On perusal of the records, I am of the view that the contentions raised by the petitioner have to be considered by the 2^nd respondent without any delay. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Section 7(3) contemplates the broad powers of the competent authority to proceed against the person who accepted deposits in violation of the provisions of the BUDS Act. Therefore, when a complaint is placed before the 2^nd respondent/competent authority, it is the duty of the 2^nd

¶41

W.P.(Crl.).No.686/22

¶42

¶43

respondent to consider those materials and arrive at a finding as to whether any violation of the provisions of the BUDS Act has occurred or not. Similarly, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Section 29 of the BUDS Act contemplates an obligation on the police officers, on getting the information about the commission of an offence, to report the same to the competent authority. It is an undisputed fact that the grievance of the petitioner is already highlighted before the 3^rd respondent as per Ext.P3 complaint.

¶44

Therefore, in the light of the statutory mandate contained in the BUDS Act, respondents 2 and 3 are duty bound to consider the respective complaints submitted before them by the petitioners and to take decisions thereon without any delay.

¶45

In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent to take up Ext.P1 and P1 (a) complaints, consider the same on merits and take appropriate action thereon as expeditiously as possible within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Similarly, the 3^rd respondent is directed to take up Ext.P3 and consider the same. If the contents of Ext.P3 reveal the offence punishable under the provisions of the BUDS Act, the proceedings as contemplated therein, particularly under Section

¶46

W.P.(Crl.).No.686/22

¶47

¶48

29 of the Act, has to be taken by the 3^rd respondent as well. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of. Such exercise has to be conducted by the 3^rd respondent within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

JUDGE

DG/25.8.22

W.P.(Crl.).No.686/22

APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 686/2022

¶56

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶57

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 19-042022 (WITHOUT EXHIBITS) SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH POSTAL RECEIPT Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 19-04-2022 FILED BY PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P1 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21-04-2022 ISSUED BY THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT

¶58

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER DATED 18-06-2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH POSTAL RECEIPT

Ramakrishna Pillai v. Vs State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakrishna Pillai 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

Vechuchira Madhu, Vs C.F.Robert

Dr.Manju.K.Nair Vs the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways

Najumudeen Vs State of Kerala

Sujeebu Vs State of Kerala

Prathyush K.K Vs Muhammed Rifayath.O

Mani Vs State of Kerala