ORDER : E.S.INDIRESH, J. 1. In these writ petitions, petitioners are assailing the endorsement issued by the respondent No.2, rejecting the claim applications filed by the petitioners, stating that the claim of the petitioners is not supported by proper verifiable proof as contemplated under Section 7(2) of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "KPIDFE Act') for having invested the money. 2. Heard Sri. Prabhugoud B. Tumbigi, learned counsel appearing for petitioners; Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1; and Sri. Veeresh R. Budihal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. 3. Sri. Prabhugoud B. Tumbigi, learned counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that the petitioners being depositors of their hard earned money under various Fixed Deposits and Recurring Deposits before the respondent- Societies, have been deceived by the respondent-Societies and in this regard, the respondent No.2 has been appointed to make an enquiry under the provisions of KPIDFE Act. 4. By referring to the Deposit receipts produced in the writ petitions, learned counsel appearing for petitioners argued that, though the petitioners have produced the relevant documents in support of their claim, the respondent No.2 rejected the claim applications of the petitioners by the impugned endorsements without any reason. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court. 5. Per contra, Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 sought to justify the impugned endorsements issued by the respondent No.2. 6. In the light of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined  the impugned endorsements, wherein the respondent No.2- competent Authority had not rendered reasons for rejecting the claim made by petitioners and that apart, not sought for any further documents for proper verification as a proof for the deposits made by the petitioners. Therefore, impugned endorsements issued by the respondent No.2 are required to be quashed and the matter be remitted back to the respondent No.2 to reconsider the issue afresh. Therefore, impugned endorsements issued by the respondent No.2 are required to be quashed and the matter be remitted back to the respondent No.2 to reconsider the issue afresh. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) Writ Petitions allowed; ii) Impugned endorsements issued by the respondent No.2 produced at Annexure-W series in Writ Petition No.14052 of 2025 and Annexures-X series in Writ Petition No.13876 of 2025 are hereby quashed; (iii) The matter is remitted back to the respondent No.2 to re-appreciate the documents produced by the petitioners and take decision in the matter in accordance with law. (iv) It is open for the respondent No.2 to seek for any further documents if any, from the  petitioners and to provide personal hearing to the petitioners for the satisfaction of the documents that may be made by the petitioners for their claim under the KPIDFE Act. (v) It is made clear that the respondent No.2 shall complete the entire exercise within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of this order.