JUDGMENT : The issues involved in all these writ petitions are pertaining to the conduct of an “Unregulated Deposit Scheme” by Popular Group of Companies and its office bearers, directors, promoters etc. 2. The reliefs sought in W.P.(C)No.20828/2020, 20864/2020, 20902/2020 includes a direction to respondent No.2 to notify a Designated Court under Section 8 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (for short BUDS Act) and issue a direction commanding the 3rd respondent to make necessary reference to the first respondent under Section 30 of the BUDS Act and further command the first respondent to transfer the investigation to the 4th respondent CBI, besides the relief of writ of mandamus directing respondent No.5 to 8 to ascertain the scheme, if any, floated by Popular Finance Group of Companies and to initiate proceedings under the BUDS Act. 3. The reliefs sought in Writ petition Nos.18490/2020, 18397/2020, 19025/2020, 18712/2020 and 18852/2020 are (1) issue a direction to initiate proceedings under the Kerala Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2013 (Act 7 of 2015) (for short KPID Act)as against the owners, directors and promoters of Popular Group of Companies and Firms, including respondent No.7 to 14, (2) for an interim order commanding the first respondent to attach all properties including bank lockers and deposits of the Popular Group of Companies and Firms and its branches in the State of Kerala along with all movable and immovable properties, including the properties of respondents 7 to 14, (3) issue a direction to appoint competent authority and special court under the said Act, (4) issue direction to the 6th respondent to take action against the said firm and the respondents 7 to 14, in terms of Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and other relevant provisions and (5) direct respondents 1 and 6 to initiate steps in accordance with law for recovery and return of deposit amount and such other reliefs. 4. Among the other reliefs, petitioners in W.P.(C)NO.22687/2020 and 18716/2020 sought direction to the State Government to frame Rules as mandated under Section 38 of BUDS Act, 2019, to direct Forensic Audit into the affairs of accused in their business concerns, joint ventures, LLPs etc. 4. Among the other reliefs, petitioners in W.P.(C)NO.22687/2020 and 18716/2020 sought direction to the State Government to frame Rules as mandated under Section 38 of BUDS Act, 2019, to direct Forensic Audit into the affairs of accused in their business concerns, joint ventures, LLPs etc. under the BUDS Act by appointing a forensic auditor to trace out various channels of money siphoned off both in and outside India and to direct the State Government to frame Rules based on KPID Act. 5. The main relief sought in W.P.(C)No.20770/2020, 20794/2020, 20834/2020, 20824/2020, 18199/2020, 18302/2020, 18498/2020, 18860/2020, 18793/2020, 18754/2020,25491/2020 and 18781/2020 are substantially same with the other writ petitions which includes a direction to hand over the investigation to Central Bureau of Investigation and to register separate crimes based on the complaints. 6. W.P.(C)No. 22970/2020 is by accused No.1 seeking a direction to consolidate all the FIR registered treating Ext.P1 crime No.1740/2020 of Konni Police Station as the leading case and to file supplementary report in all other connected crimes, for a declaration that the Konni Police Station has jurisdiction to investigate all the crimes registered and other consequential reliefs. 7. The petitioners are the various depositors in Popular Finance, a financial establishment having its head office at Popular Towers, Vakayar, Konni, Pathanamthitta. It is owned and managed by respondent No.7 to 14 in W.P.(C)No.18490/2020. Advertisements were made in the official website of the establishment referring their concern as “Indias Emerging Gold Loan Company” and promised alluring rates of interest on deposits. Under that guise, they have received deposits from various persons including the petitioners. It was originally a partnership firm commenced in the year 1955. Deposits were received from general public by offering tempting rates of interest over and above the bank rate. There are altogether 258 branches by the name Popular Marine Products, Popular Traders, Popular Timbers etc. all over India. 8. On preliminary investigation, it was revealed that the amount involved in the scam comes to 1600 crores of rupees as on February, 2020 and there are in and around 30000 depositors with 258 branches all over India. 9. There are altogether 258 branches by the name Popular Marine Products, Popular Traders, Popular Timbers etc. all over India. 8. On preliminary investigation, it was revealed that the amount involved in the scam comes to 1600 crores of rupees as on February, 2020 and there are in and around 30000 depositors with 258 branches all over India. 9. The writ petitions were objected mainly on the following reasons: (1) that the issue will not come under the purview of BUDS Act so as to enable the CBI to investigate the crime (2) it is the Central Government who has to take decision to transfer investigation to the CBI and not the State Government (3) that the Central Government is not bound to transfer investigation to CBI on any request made by the State Government (4) that no case of faulty investigation or defective investigation raised against the present investigating officers (5) that if the accused are re-arrested by the CBI, they will be left out without any remedy since no Designated Court under the BUDS Act has so far been appointed/notified by the State Government (6) that no Rules were framed by the State Government under the BUDS Act and as such, none of the provisions under the BUDS Act can be invoked at this stage (7) that the provisions of BUDS Act cannot be invoked since proceedings and actions were already initiated under the general law as well as the KPID Act and hence there is no scope for investigation by the CBI (8) that having no retrospective effect to the BUDS Act, it will not have any operation to the deposits received prior to its commencement and that it is not practical or permissible to bifurcate investigation into parts so as to enable the CBI to investigate the remaining part viz, pertaining to deposits received after its commencement. Virtually it will result in untold hardships and failure of justice (9) that it is permissible for the petitioners to maintain a debtor petition under the Insolvency Act or a creditor petition by any of the creditor and the jurisdiction vested with the Insolvency Court cannot be taken away by virtue of the provisions in the Kerala Act, the KPID Act and the Central Act, the BUDS Act and hence attachment, if any made would stand subject to the jurisdiction of Insolvency Court and lastly (10) that none of the penal provisions will stand attracted as there is only a failure to discharge the liability from the month of April, 2020 onwards and a civil liability alone can be fastened against the company, its directors and promoters. 10. Section 35 of the BUDS Act makes it clear that the provisions in the Act is in addition to and not in derogation of provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Section 34 of the Act gives an overriding effect to the provisions of this Act notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force including any law made by any State or the Union Territory. This would make the legal position crystal clear that the provisions in the BUDS Act will have overriding effect over any state laws including KPID Act. The BUDS Act came into force on 21.2.2019. The business of respondent No.7 to 14 was started even prior to the commencement of BUDS Act. The business conducted by the respondents 7 to 14 is not a “Regulated Deposit scheme” as defined under Section 2(14) of the BUDS Act, but an “Unregulated Deposit Scheme” as defined under Section 2(17) of the Act and it would come under the purview of “Deposit Taker” as defined under Section 2(6) of the Act. 11. The default in payment of interest and return of deposit from the month of April, 2020 onwards was admitted by respondent No.7 to 14. It was submitted that till that time, they were paying interest. Section 3 of the BUDS Act bars the conduct of an “Unregulated Deposit Scheme” and also prohibits a deposit taker to promote, operate, issue any advertisement soliciting participation or enrollment in or accept deposits in pursuance of an unregistered deposit scheme either directly or indirectly. It was submitted that till that time, they were paying interest. Section 3 of the BUDS Act bars the conduct of an “Unregulated Deposit Scheme” and also prohibits a deposit taker to promote, operate, issue any advertisement soliciting participation or enrollment in or accept deposits in pursuance of an unregistered deposit scheme either directly or indirectly. Section 3 of the BUDS Act is extracted below for reference: “Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes – On and from the date of commencement of this Act (a) the Unregulated Deposit Schemes shall be banned; and (b) no deposit taker shall, directly or indirectly, promote, operate, issue any advertisement soliciting participation or enrollment in or accept deposits in pursuance of an Unregulated Deposit Scheme.” 12. There is a complete ban in the conduct of 'Unregulated Deposit Scheme' under Section 3(a) of the Act. Hence, even if deposits were received prior to the commencement of the Act and if it is an “Unregulated Deposit Scheme” and continued after the commencement of the Act, Section 3(a) would come into play. Admittedly, the business was not stopped and the deposits were not returned as on the date of commencement of the Act, but carried on even after its commencement. A huge amount of Rs.1,600 crores is involved as per the preliminary report. The involvement of 30000 depositors also reported. Hence, the “Unregulated Deposit Scheme” business conducted and carried on after the commencement of BUDS Act would squarely come under its provisions, irrespective of whether the deposits were made prior to or after its commencement. The date of commencement of the Act i.e. 21/2/2019 is crucial and when there is either conduct, continuance or commencement of any Unregulated Deposit Scheme after the said date, it would attract the mischief under Section 3(a) of the Act. 13. Section 30(1) of the BUDS Act is an enabling provision by which the 'competent authority' is equipped with authority to refer a matter to the Central Government for investigation by the CBI on receipt of information under Section 29 or otherwise, if it has reason to believe involvement of offence relating to a deposit scheme or deposit schemes as enumerated in clauses (a) and (b). Section 30 of the BUDS Act is extracted below for reference: “30. Section 30 of the BUDS Act is extracted below for reference: “30. Investigation of offences by Central Bureau of Investigation–(1)On receipt of information under section 29 or otherwise, if the Competent Authority has reason to believe that the offence relates to a deposit scheme or deposit schemes in which- (a) the depositors, deposit takers or properties involved are located in more than one State or Union territory in India or outside India; and (b) the total value of the amount involved is of such magnitude as to significantly affect the public interest, the Competent Authority shall refer the matter to the Central Government for investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation. (2) The reference made by the Competent Authority under sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be with the consent of the State Government under section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946). (3) On the receipt of the reference under sub-section (1), the Central Government may transfer the investigation of the offence to the Central Bureau of Investigation under Section 5 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946).” (emphasis supplied) 14. Clause (a) brings all depositors or deposit takers or properties involved in more than one State or Union Territory in India or outside India within the compass of Section 31 of the Act. Clause (b) deals with the magnitude of the total value of the amount involved which would significantly affect the public interest. Sub-section (2) of Section 30 is a deeming provision that when such reference was made under sub section (1), it shall be deemed to have with the consent of State Government as mandated under Section 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. Sub-section(3) deals with the transfer of investigation to the CBI by the Central Government under Section 5 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act on receipt of such reference under sub-section(1). The legislature has in its wisdom incorporated the word “shall” in sub-section(1) in the matter of reference to be made by the competent authority, but in sub-section (3), the word “may” was incorporated dealing with the transfer of investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation by the Central Government in accordance with the mandate under Section 5 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. Some sort of confusion is there when the expression “shall” is used in the matter of reference by the competent authority, but the expression “may” incorporated in sub-section (3) dealing with the transfer of investigation by the Central Government to CBI as to whether the provisions are mandatory or directory. There is no inflexible rule that the expressions “shall” would always stand for “mandatory” and “may” for directory or discretionary. But it should be interpreted in accordance with the legislative intent so as to make the provision effective with its purport. No provision is made in the Act as to within what time a decision has to be taken by the Central Government by virtue of sub-section(3). What is included in sub section (3) to Section 30 of the BUDS Act is to satisfy the mandate under Section 5 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, so as to enable the CBI to investigate the crime. The restriction imposed under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act had been taken away to a large extent by incorporation of a deeming provision, sub-section(2) of Section 30 of BUDS Act. The way in which sub-sections (1) and (2) to Section 30 of the Act was drafted would convey the legislative intent to avoid even the mandate under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act by incorporating a deemed provision to the effect that the reference under sub-section (1) by the competent authority would deemed to have the consent of State Government. When the matter falls under clause (a) to Section 30(1) of the BUDS Act concerning the depositors, deposit takers or properties involved are located in more than one State or Union territory in India or outside India, the requirement of investigation by a competent agency cannot be avoided, especially when the legislature had taken away the mandate under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act requiring the consent of State Government under the deemed provision, sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the BUDS Act and had given an abrupt end to sub-section (3) without specifying any time limit for taking a decision by the Central Government. The comprehensive nature of the Act further demands an interpretation to the expression “may” incorporated in sub-section (3) as mandatory to take a decision within a reasonable time atleast in the matters which would fall under clause (a) of Section 30(1) of the BUDS Act. In fact, Section 30(3) of the BUDS Act abruptly ends without specifying a time limit for taking a decision by the Central Government. It may create jurisdictional and operative impropriety in the further proceedings of the investigation by the state police in the matter, if it is already initiated. 15. In the instant case, admittedly there are 258 branches spread over to in and out of State of Kerala. There is allegation of outsourcing funds. According to the petitioners, the funds of the various institutions siphoned off even to foreign countries. The amount involved comes to 1600 crores of rupees. The depositors come to in and around 30000 and hence it would satisfy both the clauses (a) and (b) to Section 30(1) of the BUDS Act and hence in order to prevent failure of justice and to have a proper investigation covering the entire crime spread over to in and around the State of Kerala, handing over of investigation to a competent authority cannot be avoided. 16. The Government of Kerala had addressed the Central Government with a request to entrust the investigation in Crime No.7040/2020 of Konni Police Station and other crimes registered against the Popular Finance Limited and its allied establishments with the CBI. Directions were issued by this Court on 16/9/2020 to take appropriate decision by the authority under the Central Government. It is fairly conceded by the standing counsel for the Central Government that so far no decision is taken inspite of the direction issued by this court and the request made by the State Government. It is further submitted that the request made by the State Government was not in the proper form. Mere technicalities shall not be permitted to stand in the way of administration of justice and sometimes it may amount to indignation to the order/direction issued by this court. It is further submitted that the request made by the State Government was not in the proper form. Mere technicalities shall not be permitted to stand in the way of administration of justice and sometimes it may amount to indignation to the order/direction issued by this court. There is failure on the part of the authorities under the Central Government to comply with the requirement under sub-section (3) of Section 30 of the BUDS Act, within a reasonable time and as such, this court has no other alternative, but to issue a direction to take over the investigation by the CBI, forthwith. 17. The provisions of BUDS Act is not a substitute for any other existing law, except the banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Ordinance,2019(Ordinance 7 of 2019),but an addition to existing laws. Hence it is well within the jurisdiction of authorities constituted under the Act to exercise their jurisdiction even in a matter over which actions were taken under the general law or the State Act, KPID Act. There is no legal impediment or illegality in proceeding with the matter under the provisions of BUDS Act, though actions were taken under the provisions of KPID Act and crime was registered under the general law by the competent police officials. But it is submitted that so far no Designated Court appointed/notified by the State Government and no Rules were framed by the State Government for the implementation of provisions under the BUDS Act, the Central Act. The State Attorney fairly submitted that framing of Rules is under process and within two or three days, it will be completed. It is also submitted that proceedings were initiated to appoint/notify designated court in consultation with the Honourable The Chief Justice and it will be completed within a few days. It is the duty of the State Government to protect the interests of depositors as against unscrupulous elements and to prevent any act of massive exploitation by canvassing depositors, offering enticing interest over and above the bank rate, that too, without the required licence from the competent authority. The very conduct of business of Unregulated Deposit Scheme by receiving various deposits either under the guise of debentures or shares would cast a duty on the State Government to protect the interests of the weaker sections from being exploited under the guise of handsome offers. The very conduct of business of Unregulated Deposit Scheme by receiving various deposits either under the guise of debentures or shares would cast a duty on the State Government to protect the interests of the weaker sections from being exploited under the guise of handsome offers. It is as per the recommendation of 21st report of Parliamentary related Standing Committee on Finance, a comprehensive Act in the form of BUDS Act was enacted on the reason that the existing laws, i.e. the Central Legislation such as Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 and the Chit Funds Act, 1982 and the legislations enacted by various State Governments found to be unable to address effectively the issues related to 'Unregulated Deposit Schemes' run by unscrupulous elements. Though the BUDS Act came into force on 21.02.2019, so far, no Rules were framed by the State Government for the effective implementation of the provisions of the Act within the State of Kerala to address effectively all the issues pertaining to Unregulated Deposit Scheme run by unscrupulous elements. Hence this court cannot avoid the exercise of its jurisdiction to issue a direction to that effect. 18. It is submitted that in the event of re-arrest of accused by the CBI, they will be left out without any remedy since no Designated Court under the BUDS Act so far appointed or notified and it would virtually deny their right to get bail or agitate their grievance. There is much weight in the said contention, when there is an express bar under Section 8(2)of the BUDS Act. Section 32 of the Act enables the Designated Court to take cognizance under the said Act without the accused being committed to it for trial and as such, a further delay in the matter of exercising the power vested with the State Government to notify/appoint a Designated Court and to frame Rules would result in failure of justice. 19. Section 32 of the Act enables the Designated Court to take cognizance under the said Act without the accused being committed to it for trial and as such, a further delay in the matter of exercising the power vested with the State Government to notify/appoint a Designated Court and to frame Rules would result in failure of justice. 19. The next contention regarding the jurisdiction of Insolvency Court is concerned, the scheme of BUDS Act and the various provisions including the bar of jurisdiction under Section 8(2) of the Act gives a comprehensive jurisdiction both in civil and criminal matters with the Designated Court including the jurisdiction to deal with the question of confirmation of attachment, to conduct sale, to decide claim petition, to distribute property, attachment of property transferred with the intent to defeat and defraud depositors etc. Since comprehensive provisions were made in the BUDS Act to address all civil and criminal matters, the bar under Section 8(2) of the BUDS Act is complete and effective and no other court can take up any matter which would fall within the purview of the BUDS Act. Hence the Insolvency Court cannot entertain any debtor or creditor petition pertaining to a matter which would come under the purview of BUDS Act. 20. Since no Rules were framed and no Designated Court was appointed/notified, the provisions of the BUDS Act cannot be exercised to protect the interests of victims of Unregulated Deposit Scheme. In order to avoid failure of justice in the interregnum, the Courts having jurisdiction either regular or special court can invoke their jurisdiction till a Designated Court is established in accordance with the mandate under the BUDS Act. Since no Designated Court has so far been established in accordance with the mandate under the BUDS Act, the bar under Section 8(2) of the Act would not come into play, till its establishment either by notification or by appointment. It is well within the jurisdiction of this Court to issue a direction so as to meet the present situation till a Designated Court is established in accordance with the BUDS Act. The legal position was very much settled by a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Radhey Shyam and Anr. v. C.Chhabi Nath and Ors. It is well within the jurisdiction of this Court to issue a direction so as to meet the present situation till a Designated Court is established in accordance with the BUDS Act. The legal position was very much settled by a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Radhey Shyam and Anr. v. C.Chhabi Nath and Ors. ( AIR 2015 SC 3269 ) following the legal position settled in Umaji Keshao Meshram v. Radhikabai (1986 Supp.SCC 401 : AIR 1986 SC 1272 ). There is material difference in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The power under Article 227 may be exercised in cases occasioning grave injustice or failure of justice such as when (i) the court or the Tribunal has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have (ii) has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have, such failure occasioning a failure of justice and (iii) the jurisdiction though available is being exercised in a manner which tantamounts to overstepping the limits of jurisdiction. But when there is no machinery to exercise a particular jurisdiction as per a special enactment, the vacuum so created can be filled up effectively by exercising the original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. This Court is duty bound to give effect and ensure constitutional protection in favour of weaker section of the society, when they are brought under the purview of a particular enactment barring the jurisdiction of regular courts, but without a provision to address their grievance or providing a machinery in that behalf. 21. It is by virtue of Section 8(2) of the Act, the jurisdiction of regular court was taken away and vested with the Designated Court under the BUDS Act. Section 8(2) of the Act will not have any application till a Designated Court is appointed/notified. Till that time, the regular court(special court in the case of CBI) can exercise its jurisdiction over the matter. As per Section 8(2) of the BUDS Act, the presiding officer of a Designated Court should not be below the rank of a District & Sessions Judge or Additional District or Sessions Judge. Till that time, the regular court(special court in the case of CBI) can exercise its jurisdiction over the matter. As per Section 8(2) of the BUDS Act, the presiding officer of a Designated Court should not be below the rank of a District & Sessions Judge or Additional District or Sessions Judge. As such, it is fit and proper to direct the respective CBI Courts (Special Courts) constituted/notified within Kerala to hold and exercise the criminal jurisdiction under the BUDS Act under their respective territorial jurisdiction, till a designated court is appointed/notified by the State Government. Pertaining to the civil matters which would come under the purview of BUDS Act, the competent authority has already been appointed. To avoid hardship and failure of justice, it is also fit and proper to authorise the same court (Special Court) to hold and exercise the jurisdiction pertaining to the civil matters under the BUDS Act. Otherwise, it will result in multiplicity of proceedings and untold hardships. 22. W.P.(C)No.22970/2020 for consolidating the FIR registered treating one of the case as the leading case and for other consequential reliefs, hence cannot be sustained and deserves only a dismissal. I do so. The other writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions: (1) The State Government is directed to frame Rules for the implementation of BUDS Act as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of two weeks from today. There will be a further direction to the State Government to appoint/notify Designated Court in accordance with the mandate under the BUDS Act within that time. (2) The 'competent authority' under the BUDS Act shall exercise its powers under Section 7(3) of the BUDS Act by provisionally attaching the deposits held by the deposit takers either in their name or in the name of any other person on their behalf either independently or jointly, including all the properties which are under attachment under the provisions of KPID Act and all other assets directly or indirectly connected with the various firms run by respondent No.7 to 14 either independently or jointly forthwith. (3) The CBI Courts (Special Court) constituted within Kerala shall hold and exercise the jurisdiction pertaining to the matters within their respective territorial jurisdiction, both civil and criminal under the provisions of the BUDS Act, till the appointment/notification of a Designated Court by the State Government in accordance with provisions of BUDS Act. All actions/ orders/proceedings taken by the CBI Court during the interregnum will stand deemed to have been taken by the Designated Court constituted under the BUDS Act. The provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, Civil Rules of Practice, Code of Criminal Procedure and Criminal Rules of Practice in so far as it is applicable shall be followed in the matter of all proceedings/actions and orders that may be initiated or passed pertaining to the issues, till Rules are framed by the State Government in that behalf. The entire records together with the proceedings/actions and orders shall be forwarded to the Designated Court as soon as it is appointed/notified. (4) The entire investigation pertaining to all crimes with respect to the alleged 'Unregulated Deposit Scheme' including the FIR registered in 1368 crimes is hereby transferred and handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The CBI shall forthwith take over the entire investigation and shall constitute a Special Investigation Team having sufficient expertise in the field of economic offences. There will be a direction to provide sufficient manpower and logistical support to constitute an effective special investigation team, taking into account the voluminous nature of the cases involved and the number of crimes registered. While constituting special investigation team, persons of unblemished integrity and competency should be selected. The State Government shall provide all logistical support to the investigation team. Accordingly, W.P.(C)No.22970/2020 is hereby dismissed. All other writ petitions are disposed of with the abovesaid directions.