Judgment : This civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 (in short TNPID Act, 1997) against the order dated 20.08.2010 made by the Special Judge under TNPID Act, Coimbatore in O.A.No.38 of 2008. 2. The financial establishment, whose properties were attached by the Government and the said attachment was made absolute by the above said order made in an application preferred by the Competent Authority is the appellant herein. The Competent Authority and the Inspector of Police, who investigated the offence allegedly committed by the appellant punishable under the provisions of the TNPID Act have been shown as Respondents 1 and 2 respectively. 3. On a miscellaneous petition filed by the appellant as M.P.No.1 of 2013 in this civil miscellaneous appeal praying for impleadment of the investors as other respondents in the appeal, this court passed an order impleading them as respondents 3 to 8. The third respondent Janarthanan is no more. The respondents 1 and 2 are represented by the Special Government Pleader (CS). Respondents 4 to 8 are represented by Mr.T.P.Manoharan. 4. The arguments advanced by Mr.R.Murali, learned counsel for the appellant, by Mr.V.Jayaram, learned Special Government Pleader (CS) representing the respondents 1 and 2 and by Mr.T.P.Manoharan, learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 8 are heard. The materials available on record are also perused. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant, without going into the merits of the appeal and expressing the appellant's readiness to make payment of the amounts due to the investors with interest as per the deposit receipts till the date of maturity and interest for the subsequent period at half of the rate of interest agreed to and incorporated in the deposit receipts wanted this court to show indulgence by releasing the properties attached by the Government, which attachment was made absolute by the impugned order of the Special Court under the TNPID Act. Learned Special Government Pleader (CS) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, namely the Competent Authority and the Investigating Officer and the learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 8, namely some of the investors, expressed their unwillingness to accept the said offer for raising the attachment made in respect of the properties of the appellant. Learned Special Government Pleader (CS) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, namely the Competent Authority and the Investigating Officer and the learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 8, namely some of the investors, expressed their unwillingness to accept the said offer for raising the attachment made in respect of the properties of the appellant. As the said offer made by the appellant was turned down, the learned counsel for the appellant has chosen to make his submissions supporting the challenge made to the impugned order of the TNPID Court dated 20.08.2010 made in O.A.No.38 of 2008. 6. Though the appellant has not raised a specific ground on the question of belatedness in filing the application under Section 4(3) of the TNPID Act, 1997, the learned counsel for the appellant sought the leave of the court to raise it as an additional ground. This court, acting on the oral application of the learned counsel for the appellant, permits the appellant to raise such a ground as one of the grounds challenging the order passed by the Special Judge under TNPID Act, 1997, Coimbatore. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order under Section 3 of the TNPID Act, 1997, came to be passed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.572 Home (Courts-IIA) Department dated 26.04.2004, but the application under Section 4(3) came to be filed in December 2004, which was not at all processed for several years and that the failure to comply under section 4(3) of the Act to get an order making the attachment absolute shall nullify the order passed by the government under section 3 of the Act. 8. In this regard, learned Special Government Pleader is not in a position to give a clear picture as to when the application was filed and how the application was taken on file, even though it was not filed within 30 days as contemplated under section 4(3) of the Act. Learned Special Government Pleader has made an attempt to contend that an application for condoning the delay in preferring the Original Application under Section 4 (3) could have been made and the Original Application could have been taken on file after passing an order condoning the delay in filing the Original Application. Learned Special Government Pleader has made an attempt to contend that an application for condoning the delay in preferring the Original Application under Section 4 (3) could have been made and the Original Application could have been taken on file after passing an order condoning the delay in filing the Original Application. But, this court, after going through the original records summoned from the TNPID Court, is able to find absence of any such interlocutory application or any order condoning the delay in preferring the original application under Section 4(3) of the Act. It is pertinent to note that the application filed by the Competent Authority simply refers to the date of ad-interim order of attachment passed by the government as 26.04.2004. Conspicuously reference about the date on which the Competent Authority received copy of the order is missing. When the same was pointed out to the learned Special Government Pleader and this court wanted to know the actual date on which the competent authority received the copy of the order passed by the government under section 3 of the Act, the learned Special Government Pleader wanted an adjournment to get necessary instructions in this regard from the competent authority. 9. However, learned counsel for the appellant drew the attention of the court to the fact that an application filed under section 4(3) shall be accompanied by a copy of the order of ad-interim attachment passed by the government and wanted this court to verify the records. On such verification, it is found that, the then Competent Authority was the Additional Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk and the copy of the order of ad-interim attachment made in G.O.Ms.No.572 Home (Courts-IIA) Department dated 26.04.2004 was received in his office on 04.05.2004 itself. The same is obvious from the seal affixed in the office of the Special Commissioner for Land Administration, Chennai. The application submitted under section 4(3) of the Act to make the ad-interim attachment absolute was signed by the competent authority on 22.12.2004 and was presented on the same day. The fact that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore chose to sign the application as competent authority may give an inference that he was subsequently made the competent authority. The application submitted under section 4(3) of the Act to make the ad-interim attachment absolute was signed by the competent authority on 22.12.2004 and was presented on the same day. The fact that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore chose to sign the application as competent authority may give an inference that he was subsequently made the competent authority. However designation of one more officer as competent authority to exercise jurisdiction in a particular area shall not be a justification for not applying under section 4(3) of the Act to get the ad-interim order of attachment made absolute. If the government and the competent authority are allowed to flout the statutory provision, which mandates that an application under Section 4(3) to make the ad-interim order of attachment absolute should be filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of the ad-interim attachment passed by the government, the same will defeat the very object sought to be achieved by introducing the said provision in the Legislation by the Legislature. If any relaxation in this regard can be given, the same will be misused and abused to have the properties attached indefinitely even without getting the approval of the court. 10. The Legislature, in its wisdom, has chosen to give the power to the government to pass an ad-interim order of attachment attaching the properties of the financial Establishment or other persons under certain contingencies in order to ensure that those properties are not squandered at the cost of the investors. Still conscious of the fact that such a power given to the Government can be misused, the Legislature has chosen to confer such a power bridled with a responsibility to apply before the competent court, namely TNPID court, to get the order of attachment made absolute and prescribe a time limit for doing so. Initially a period of 15 days had been prescribed and by an amendment made in 1999, the said period of 15 days was enhanced to 30 days. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the Legislature was very much conscious of the danger in allowing the Government to have the properties attached and keep the attachment in tact indefinitely without approaching the court for getting the order of attachment made absolute. 11. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the Legislature was very much conscious of the danger in allowing the Government to have the properties attached and keep the attachment in tact indefinitely without approaching the court for getting the order of attachment made absolute. 11. In this case, the competent authority had not acted in tune with Section 4(3) of the Act in applying before the TNPID Court to get the order of ad-interim attachment of the government passed under Section 3 of the Act made absolute. Then we have to consider the effect of failure to apply under Section 4(3) of the Act. As pointed out supra, the intention of the Legislature being clear that the attachment should not be made to subsist without the sanction of the court beyond a particular period, this court has to necessarily come to the conclusion that the attachment shall lapse on the expiry of 30 days from the date on which the competent authority receives a copy of the order passed by the Government. If such a view is taken, the necessary question that may arise shall be "how the interest of the depositors which is sought to be protected by the Act shall be protected in such cases?" 12. Of course, the Act itself was enacted for protecting the interest of the depositors against the financial institutions, who are unable to repay the deposits or pay the interest. Besides the power to order attachment in case of actual inability to repay the deposits or interest either in terms of money or in kind or in terms of service, the Act also provides for attachment even before the actual arisal of the inability by empowering the government to make such an ad-interim attachment, if it has reason to believe that the financial establishment will not be in a position to honour its commitment to repay the deposit or pay the interest. As such, we have to strike a balance between the interest of the financial institution and also the interest of the depositors. The interest of depositors is sought to be protected by conferring the power on the government to attach the properties even without approaching the court, with a rider that the court must be approached by the competent authority within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order from the government. The interest of depositors is sought to be protected by conferring the power on the government to attach the properties even without approaching the court, with a rider that the court must be approached by the competent authority within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order from the government. The interest of the financial establishment or other person connected with the management of the financial institution is sought to be protected by prescribing a time limit within which, the competent authority has to approach the Special court under TNPID Act for getting its approval for attachment. The Act also contains provisions enabling the financial Establishment or the other person suffering an order of ad-interim attachment to offer security and seek release of the property attached or to show cause why the attachment should not be made absolute. When such safeguards have been made in favour of both the depositors and the financial establishments, strict adherence to the provision should be made. The failure on the part of the competent authority to apply to the Special Court for making the order of ad-interim attachment absolute, will cause the termination of ad-interim attachment made by the government. But it does not mean that the government cannot pass a fresh order attaching the property and thereby enable the competent authority to apply within 30 days from the date of receipt of such a fresh order. Therefore, the view that the order of ad-interim attachment shall lapse on the expiry of 30 days from the date of receipt of the said order by the competent authority, will not have the effect of totally depriving the Government of its power to protect the interest of the depositors. In such cases, the Government can come forward to pass a fresh order, if it is not a case of an order passed by the TNPID court raising the attachment made by the government, in which event, the Government may not have the power to pass such an ad-interim attachment without a fresh cause of action having arisen subsequent to such an order. 13. For all the reasons stated above, this court comes to the conclusion that the order of ad-interim attachment passed by the government under G.O.Ms.No.572 Home (Courts-IIA) Department dated 26.04.2004 stood lapsed before O.A.No.38/2008 was presented for making the said order of attachment absolute. 13. For all the reasons stated above, this court comes to the conclusion that the order of ad-interim attachment passed by the government under G.O.Ms.No.572 Home (Courts-IIA) Department dated 26.04.2004 stood lapsed before O.A.No.38/2008 was presented for making the said order of attachment absolute. The learned Special Judge of the TNPID Court, without proper application of the provisions of law, simply chose to pass an order making the order of attachment absolute. The said order passed by the Special Judge, TNPID Court cannot be sustained in law and it deserves to be set aside. In the result, the appeal succeeds and the order of the Special Judge, TNPID Court, Coimbatore dated 20.08.2010 made in O.A.No.38 of 2008 is set aside. The O.A.No.38 of 2008 shall stand disposed of taking note of the fact that the order of ad-interim attachment passed by the government in G.O.Ms.No.572 Home (Courts-IIA) Department dated 26.04.2004 stood lapsed by the expiry of 30 days from 04.05.2004, namely the date on which the competent authority received the copy of the said Government Order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.