JUDGMENT : (Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 11 of TNPID Act, against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.05.2013 made in O.A.No.19 of 2010, passed by the Special Judge under TNPID Act, Chennai.) The Fair and Decreetal order dated 30.05.2013 passed in O.A.No.19 of 2010 is under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. The authority competent under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors [In Financial Establishments Act] 1997, ['TNPID Act] is the appellant, questioned raising of the attachment passed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.585, Home (Police XIX) Department dated 27.07.2009. 3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that one M/s.Sri Dhanalakshmi Finance, consisting of 15 partners, collected huge amount of deposits from various depositors, who all are public in general. On demand, the said M/s.Sri Dhanalakshmi Finance was unable to return the matured deposits to the depositors and the amount of deposit collected is running more than a sum of Rs.15 Crores. During the year 2006, the bonafide depositors preferred a complaint before the District Crime Branch, Thiruvannamalai and the case was registered in Crime No.5 of 2007 and subsequently, it was transferred to the Economic Finances Wing-II, Vellore. The Inspector of Police, Economic Offence Wing-II, identified the movable and immovable properties belongs to the financier and based on the investigation, the Government invoking the powers under Section 3 of the TNPID Act, issued Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.585, Home (Police XIX) Department dated 27.07.2009. Accordingly, several items of properties were attached as detailed in the Government order. 4. The respondent/Financier/3rd Accused filed an application for raising the attachment issued in G.O.Ms.No.585, Home (Police XIX) Department dated 27.07.2009. 5. The Special Court adjudicated the issues. The Special Court made a finding that Item Nos.1 and 3 in Ex.P7 and Ex.P6 stands in the name of the Financier and the attachment cannot be raised as far as those items of properties are concerned. In respect of Item Nos.2, 4 and 5 in Ex.P5 & Ex.P3, the attachment was raised on the ground that those items are joint family properties. The said assets were created much prior to the establishment of the Finance Company by the Accused persons. 6. However, it is contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader that there was no adjudication at all with reference to these findings. Documents were not verified. The Financiers were not produced. The said assets were created much prior to the establishment of the Finance Company by the Accused persons. 6. However, it is contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader that there was no adjudication at all with reference to these findings. Documents were not verified. The Financiers were not produced. Witnesses were not examined and therefore, such a finding arrived by the Special Court is untenable and not in consonance with the very purpose and object of the Act. Further, if such attachments are raised without proper adjudication, the interest of the depositors would be in peril. It is contended that based on the improper and insufficient enquiry, the Special Court raised the attachment in respect of the properties in Item Nos.2, 4 and 5 in Ex.P5 & Ex.P3. Therefore, the order is liable to be scrapped. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent made a submission that the attachment was raised only in respect of three properties and those properties are no way connected with the depositors or the money collected from the depositors Those properties were not purchased from and out of the amount collected from the depositors and therefore, the Special Court is right in raising the attachment. 8. This Court is of the considered opinion that the very Enactment namely Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors [In Financial Establishments Act] 1997, speaks about Statement of objects and reasons. The said statement of objects and reasons reveals that the Act was enacted by the Government of Tamil Nadu to protect the interests of the depositors, who have lost their hard-earned money in the Financial institutions. At present, there is no provision in the said Act for attaching the properties of the persons, who borrowed money from the Financial Establishments and for the sale of attached property, public auction and for the equitable distribution of the sale provides to the depositors. In order to overcome the shortcomings and to make the Tamil Nadu Act 44 of 1997 more effective, the Government have decided to amend the Act. 9. With this purpose and object, the provisions of the TNPID Act defines the Financial Establishment. Section 3 denotes Attachment of properties on default of return of deposits. Various circumstances are provided under Section 3, empowering the Government to attach the properties in order to protect the interests of the depositors and their hard-earned money. 9. With this purpose and object, the provisions of the TNPID Act defines the Financial Establishment. Section 3 denotes Attachment of properties on default of return of deposits. Various circumstances are provided under Section 3, empowering the Government to attach the properties in order to protect the interests of the depositors and their hard-earned money. Even the interests of the Financier in the family property is also to be considered as a property, which an be attached under Section 3 of the Act. Section 3 of the Act provides wider scope to attach the properties belong to the Financial Company or the properties in the name of the Financier or their family members or if the properties, if sold to third party and other circumstances. Thus, once the Investigating Authority arrived a conclusion that the properties, which all are the subject matter for the attachment directly or indirectly connected with the amounts collected from the depositors, then they are empowered to attach the property and then adjudicate the issues on merits and in accordance with law. Section 9 of the Act provides that Security in lieu of attachment. If any party claims that he is a third party to the Finance Company and his purchase of property is no way connected with the money collected from the depositors, then such third parties have got remedy to produce security in lieu of attachment and release the property by obtaining permission from the Special Court in the manner known to law. Such a provision is made available even for the financiers also. 10. In this context, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the present case, the Special Court has not adjudicated the issue regarding the properties, which all are now raised from attachment. In the absence of any proper adjudication, the properties attached cannot be raised and further, the interests of the depositors are also to be looked into and such a consideration was not shown by the Special Court in its findings. 11. Though the Act was enacted in the interests of the depositors and to protect their hard-earned money, the same is not done in a speedy manner. Many cases are pending for years together. 11. Though the Act was enacted in the interests of the depositors and to protect their hard-earned money, the same is not done in a speedy manner. Many cases are pending for years together. The competent authorities are not active enough to dispose of the cases, release the deposit money collected and return back to the depositors in order to fulfill the objects and purpose of the Act. The poor state of affairs in this regard with reference to the manner in which the competent authorities are acting, deserves to be reviewed by the Government. Effective steps are to be taken by the State Government to ensure all such investigations and trials before the Special Court are conducted in a speedy manner, so as to protect the interests of the depositors and extend the meaning for the provisions for the TNPID Act. Contrarily, many cases are pending for years together. Once an attachment is passed, thereafter, no progress is made. The investigations are conducted in lackadaisical manner and further, the investigating officers are colluding with the parties, which are to be enquired into by the higher authorities. There are complaints that, to slow down the investigations, corrupt activities are dominating. All these aspects are to be looked into and steps are to be taken to ensure that the interests of the depositors are protected. 12. In most of the cases, the authorities competent are not efficiently initiating action or proceeding with the matter to conclude the same. Therefore, the Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department as well as the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department are bound to issue suitable directions to all the competent authorities to ensure that the cases registered under the provisions of the TNPID Act are progressed as quick as possible and to be concluded within a reasonable period of time. All old cases are to be disposed of expeditiously. If the Government fails to initiate such an action, undoubtedly, the very purpose and object of the Act is defeated and it may not be possible for the depositors to release the money as efflux of time, will not only loose interest, but they may not be in a position to collect their deposit even if it is made available with the Special Court. 13. As far as the present case is concerned, the case was registered in the year 2007. 13. As far as the present case is concerned, the case was registered in the year 2007. The properties were attached in the year 2009. The Special Court passed an order in the year 2013. Even after a lapse of 13 years, no progress has been made and the depositors are unable to get back their money. Most of the cases are pending in this manner. Thus, urgent actions are just and necessary in the interest of justice. 14. The Special Courts are also bound to act swiftly. Unnecessary adjournments should never be granted. Adjournments cannot be granted in a casual manner by the Courts. Even on genuine grounds, adjournments are to be granted only by recording reasons. If the practice of granting adjournments in a casual manner is adopted, then the parties would be tempted to sought for such adjournments in order to prolong and protract the matter, which would defeat the purpose of the Registration of the cases under the TNPID Act. 15. As far as the present appeal is concerned, the grounds raised mainly are that the property attached by the Government is very much connected with the accused persons and they have got a share in the said property. Thus, the attachment cannot be raised without complete adjudication. If at all, the respondent/Financier want to raise the attachment, it is left open to him to approach the Special Court under Section 9 of the TNPID Act by producing security to the satisfaction of the Court. Contrarily, the attachment cannot be raised without proper adjudication of the issues raised and therefore, this Court is inclined to consider the appeal. 16. Thus, the order of attachment passed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.585, Home (Police XIX) Department dated 27.07.2009 stands confirmed in respect of all the properties attached. 17. Accordingly, the Fair and Decreetal order dated 30.05.2013 passed in O.A.No.19 of 2010 is set aside and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.No.832 of 2020 stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.