ORDER R.S. Ramanathan, J. 1. With the consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for finaly hearing. 2. The 4th Respondent is a partner in the business and the Partnership Firm received deposits from public and failed to return the deposits. Therefore, a case was registered by the 3rd Respondent against the said Partnership Firm and its partners as per the Provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 44 of 1997 and in pursuance of the power under Section 3 of the said Act, the 1st Respondent passed an interim order of attachment of the immoveable properties described in the schedule thereto which according to the 1st Respondent are the properties belonging to the partners of the said Firm. The 1st Respondent by order dated 4.12.2008 appointed the 2nd Respondent as the Competent Authority and transferred to him all the assets of the Partnership Firm and its partners to take further action as per Section 4 of the said Act. The Petitioners challenged the order of ad-interim attachment passed by the 1st Respondent made in G.O. Ms. No. 1612 Home (Police-XIX) Department, dated 4.12.2008 in so far as the land bearing Survey No. 2592/20 to an extent of 6422 Sq.ft., described as Item 3 to the schedule attached to the impugned order, in this Writ Petition. 3. Mr. S. Subbiah, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that Item 3 of the property mentioned in the impugned attachment order originally belonged to S. Krishnaswamy Naicker and he purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 30.5.1990. He died leaving behind the Petitioners and the 4th Respondent as his heirs and the 4th Respondent is entitled to l/9th share in the property. Therefore, even assuming that the attachment order can be made against that property that can be confined only to 1/9th share of the 4th Respondent and the entire property cannot be attached. He further submitted that as per Section 4(3) of the said Act, on receipt of the Government order passed under Section 3 of the Act, the 2nd Respondent who is the Competent Authority shall apply within 30 days to the Special Court constituted under the Act for making the ad-interim order of attachment absolute. He further submitted that as per Section 4(3) of the said Act, on receipt of the Government order passed under Section 3 of the Act, the 2nd Respondent who is the Competent Authority shall apply within 30 days to the Special Court constituted under the Act for making the ad-interim order of attachment absolute. He therefore, submitted that no application was made within 30 days from the date of impugned order before the Special Court by the 2nd Respondent and therefore, the attachment cannot have any legal effect. 4. On the other hand, Mr. K.A. Thiurmalayappan, the learned Additional Government Pleader reiterated the allegations made in the counter affidavit and submitted that the 4th Respondent and his partners have cheated the public and misappropriated the deposits made by the public and as per the provisions of the said Act action was taken and ad-interim order of attachment was passed attaching the properties belonging to the partners and Item 3 of the schedule of property belongs to the 4th Respondent and therefore the property was also included the order of attachment and the Petitioners who claimed to have any share in the property can apply to the Special Court as per the provisions of Section 7 by raising any objections and the Special Court will pass an order on the basis of objections raised by the Petitioners and therefore the Petitioners are having effective alternative remedy and hence the writ petition is not maintainable. He further contended that the property of the 4th Respondent and the Petitioners have not been divided by metes and bounds and hence the 4th Respondent is one of the co-owners of the property and therefore the entire properties are liable to be attached and the proceedings are pending before the Special Court for making the interim order of attachment absolute. He, therefore, submitted that the remedy that is available to the Petitioners is to approach the Special Court and the writ petition is not maintainable. 5. Heard both sides. 6. It is admitted that the ad-interim attachment was passed on 4.12.2008. It is further admitted that the property namely Item 3 in Survey No. 2592/20 to an extent of 6422 Sq.ft., belongs to S. Krishnaswamy Naicker, the father of the Petitioners 2 to 8, husband of the 1st Petitioner and father of the 4th Respondent. He purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 30.5.1990. It is further admitted that the property namely Item 3 in Survey No. 2592/20 to an extent of 6422 Sq.ft., belongs to S. Krishnaswamy Naicker, the father of the Petitioners 2 to 8, husband of the 1st Petitioner and father of the 4th Respondent. He purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 30.5.1990. The said Krishnaswamy Naicker died intestate and therefore after him, the Petitioners and the 4th Respondent are entitled to 1/9th share in the said property and hence the 4th Respondent can not be construed as full owner of the said property and he is only entitled to 1/9th share in the said property. Therefore, the order of attachment in respect of whole of the property mentioned in Item 3 in respect of Survey No. 2592/20 to an extent of 6422 Sq.ft., is not proper. 7. Further, as per Section 4(3) of the said Act, after the order was made by the 1st Respondent attaching the properties, the Competent Authority namely the 2nd Respondent should approach the Court constituted for that purpose within a period of 30 days for making the ad-interim order of attachment absolute. It is admitted by the learned Additional Government Pleader that the application under Section 4(3) of the Act was not filed within 30 days and it was filed belatedly and the application to condone the delay was also filed and it is pending before the Special Court. Therefore, it is admitted that within 30 days the application was not filed before the Special Court for making the ad-interim order of attachment absolute. Under Section 7 of the Act, when an application is pending before the Special Court filed by the Competent Authority to make the ad-interim order of attachment absolute, the affected party can file objections about the order of attachment and if such objection is made, the Special Court shall decide the objection and pass final orders within a period of six months. Therefore, the question of filing an objection before the Special Court arises only when an application is pending before the Special Court filed by the Competent Authority under Section 4(3) of the said Act. Therefore, the question of filing an objection before the Special Court arises only when an application is pending before the Special Court filed by the Competent Authority under Section 4(3) of the said Act. In this case admittedly that application is not taken up on file as there was a delay and the application for condoning the delay is pending, hence it cannot be contended by the Respondents that the Petitioners have to approach the Special Court for raising the attachment and they cannot file the writ petition. As no application is pending before the Special Court for making the ad-interim order of attachment absolute, the Petitioners cannot file any objection before the Special Court. 8. Mr. S. Subbiah, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners also relied upon the judgment reported in 2008 (4) MLJ, 211 : 2009 3 L.W. 130 (P. Venkatesan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.) and submitted that even in a case where application was filed in time and final order was not passed within a period of six months from the date of objections raised by the parties, then final order has no legal sanctity. 9. As stated supra, in this case no application is pending before the Special Court for making ad-interim order of attachment absolute and hence the question of filing the application before the Special Court by the Petitioners does not arise. However, having regard to the fact that the Petitioners are entitled to 8/9th share together in the said property and the 4th Respondent is entitled to 1/9th share in the said property, the ad-interim order of attachment is having effect only in respect of 1/9th share of the 4th Respondent and it cannot have any effect on the 8/9th share of the Petitioners. Hence, by the ad-interim order of attachment, the Petitioners 8/9th share cannot be attached and it is free from attachment and the attachment order is effective only in respect of undivided 1/9th share of the 4th Respondent. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P. No. 3 of 2009 is also closed.