Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of a learned single Judge, dated 06.08.2007, passed in W.P.No.21208 of 2004, in and by which the Writ Petition was allowed, quashing the impugned order in G.O.Ms.No.637, Home (Court-IIA) Department, dated 06.07.2001, holding that the authorities have no right to interfere with any lawful rights of the writ petitioners in respect of the property purchased by them and consequently directing the fourth appellant to take up the document presented by the writ petitioners before him for registration and process it for registration in accordance with the Indian Registration Act and the Indian Stamp Act and, if everything is found to be in order, to release the document to the writ petitioners, after registration. .2. According to the respondents/writ petitioners, based on an assurance given by the depositors association that they would settle the amount to the depositors and withdraw the case, they purchased the property situate at Door No.12, Barnabi Road, Kilpauk, Chennai, measuring about 1 Ground 1250 Sq.ft. through a sale deed, dated 19.01.2004. While so, on 06.07.2001, the first appellant made interim attachment of the said property under Section 3 of The Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act,1997, (in short, "the Act"), and issued G.O.Ms.No.637, against which the Writ Petition was filed, which was allowed. Aggrieved over the said order, the respondents therein have preferred this Writ Appeal. 3. Mr.D.Sreenivasan, learned Special Government Pleader, would strenuously contend that the Government is empowered to attach the properties purchased or procured from out of the deposit money collected from the public; if such property is not sufficient for repayment to the depositors, it may attach the properties of the financial establishments and such other properties of the manager/member/promoter/partner/director and borrower to the extent of their liabilities as per the provisions of Section 3 of the Act and, therefore, the ad-interim attachment passed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.637 is valid in law. He would further argue that notice was issued to all the respondents by the Special Court as per the provision of Section 7 of the Act and on proper investigation and examination of the witnesses, the interim order of attachment was passed on 06.07.2001, which the respondents cannot find fault with, as they purchased the property knowing fully well that the absolute attachment was made against the purchased property by a Special Court on 09.09.2002. In his last limb of contentions, the Special Government Pleader would contend that the amended Act, namely, Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 2003, under which the learned single Judge had allowed the Writ Petition, came into effect from 10th November,2003, whereas the subject matter of the impugned Government Order and the order of the Special Court, dated 09.09.2002, were much prior to the amendment and, hence, the impugned order of the learned single Judge, holding that the Special Court should pass order within a period of 180 days from the date of receipt of application, is liable to be set aside. .4. Per contra, Mr.A.Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, would contend that the Special Court had passed final order as per sub-section (6) of Section 7 of the Act only on 09.09.2002; the application filed under Section 4 (3) of the Act was on 312. 2001 and, hence, the final order should have been passed before the expiry of the period of six months i.e., 30.06.2002. He would further submit that the interim order of attachment passed under the impugned Government Order had lost its legal force in view of the expiry of the above period and, therefore, the well considered findings of the learned single Judge cannot be found fault with. 5. In the above background, the only question that arises for consideration is, whether the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge, applying amended provision under Section 7 (6) of the Act, which prescribes a period of 180 days for passing the final order from the date of receipt of the application under Section 4 (3) is correct? 6. Under the pre-amended Act, as per Section 7 (6), after investigation under subsection (5), the Special Court shall pass an order either making the ad-interim order of attachment absolute or varying it by releasing a portion of the property from attachment or cancelling the ad-interim order of attachment. 7. 6. Under the pre-amended Act, as per Section 7 (6), after investigation under subsection (5), the Special Court shall pass an order either making the ad-interim order of attachment absolute or varying it by releasing a portion of the property from attachment or cancelling the ad-interim order of attachment. 7. From the above provision, it is clear that after investigation under sub-section (5), the Special Court can pass an order either making the ad-interim order of attachment absolute or varying it by releasing a portion of the property from attachment or cancelling the ad-interim order of attachment. It is significant to note that no time limit is prescribed under this provision and it is only in the amended provision, the time limit of 180 days is prescribed for making the ad-interim order of attachment absolute. 8. A perusal of the materials placed before this Court would indicate that the order impugned in the writ petition was passed on 06.07.2001 in G.O.Ms.No.637, Home (Courts-IIA) Department, and the same was made absolute by the Special Court on 09.09.2002. The learned single Judge, in the order impugned, has held as under: "Under sub-section (6) of section 7 of the Act, once the interim order is made absolute, then, if an application is taken out by the competent authority, the Special Court shall direct the competent authority to sell the properties attached in the manner prescribed therein and for distribution as provided for under sub-section (8) of section 7 of the Act and in this case, since no valid final order had been passed, even the power available under sub-section (7) and (8) of section 7 of the Act cannot be resorted to." The above decision of the learned single Judge, in our opinion, is contrary to the provisions of the pre-amended Act, which has no prescribed period for passing the final order at the relevant point of time. The learned single Judge ought to have applied the pre-amended provision to the facts of this case and decided the issue. Instead, the learned single Judge had gone to the extent of applying the amended provision under the Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 2003, which came into effect only from 10th November, 2003, which provision was not a relevant rule of law on the date in question and had no relevance and application to the facts and circumstance of this case. 9. 9. In view of the above discussion and the legal position, we have no hesitation to hold that the order passed by the learned single Judge suffers from illegality and perversity. Hence, it is set aside, confirming the order of the Special Court, dated 09.09.2002, passed in O.A.No.10 of 2001. 10. Writ Appeal stands allowed. No costs.