Statutory appeal and lack of lawful deposit-collection authority defeated writ challenge to restraint orders, with parallel SEBI action also noted.

The Tripura High Court noted that writ petitions challenging restraint orders were not maintainable where an efficacious statutory appeal existed and the petitioners had not used it, especially because the dispute depended on contested facts requiring fact-finding. It further found no material showing lawful registration, sanction, approval, or licence to collect public deposits, so the petitioners could not claim immunity under the RBI Act, the Companies Act, or the SEBI Act, and the State authority remained competent to restrain the activity. The Court also held that while parallel or conflicting State action should not continue when SEBI proceedings are already pending, the impugned orders were not interfered with.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petitions were maintainable in view of the statutory appeal under the Tripura depositor-protection law and the disputed factual matrix; (ii) Whether the petitioners had shown any lawful authority to collect public deposits, so as to escape action under the State Act and to invoke protection under the RBI Act, the Companies Act, or the SEBI Act; (iii) Whether the competent authority could proceed or issue restraint orders when similar or overlapping proceedings were already pending before the SEBI.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petitions were maintainable in view of the statutory appeal under the Tripura depositor-protection law and the disputed factual matrix.

Analysis: The State Act and the amended Rules provided an appeal to the Secretary, Finance Department against the orders of the competent authority. The Court found that the petitioners had not availed that remedy and that the controversy involved disputed facts requiring detailed fact-finding. In such circumstances, the extraordinary writ jurisdiction was not to be used to bypass the statutory mechanism.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable on the facts and were liable to be rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners had shown any lawful authority to collect public deposits, so as to escape action under the State Act and to invoke protection under the RBI Act, the Companies Act, or the SEBI Act.

Analysis: The Court found no material showing that the petitioners possessed the required registration, sanction, approval, or licence to collect deposits in the manner projected by them. The petitioners also failed to demonstrate that their activity was lawfully covered by the regulatory regimes under the RBI Act, the Companies Act, or the SEBI Act. On the materials before it, the Court held that the authorities under the State Act were competent to regulate and restrain the petitioners' operations.

Conclusion: The petitioners failed to establish any lawful immunity from action under the State Act, and the restraint orders were not shown to be without authority.

Issue (iii): Whether the competent authority could proceed or issue restraint orders when similar or overlapping proceedings were already pending before the SEBI.

Analysis: The Court accepted that where the SEBI had already initiated action, the State authority should not act in parallel or in conflict with that process. However, the pendency or existence of SEBI proceedings did not by itself oust the statutory jurisdiction of the State authority, particularly where the impugned State action was not shown to cause prejudice in the face of the SEBI restraint. The State authority was required to keep parallel proceedings in abeyance until the statutory proceedings before the SEBI reached their logical end.

Conclusion: The State authority could not take parallel or conflicting action while SEBI proceedings were alive, but the impugned orders were not interfered with.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were dismissed, the interim protections stood vacated, and the State authority was directed not to proceed in parallel with SEBI proceedings until those proceedings concluded.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court will not ordinarily entertain a challenge to statutory restraint orders where an efficacious appeal exists and the petitioner has not shown lawful authority to carry on the regulated deposit-collection activity; nor should a State authority continue parallel regulatory action when a competent central regulator is already seized of the same subject matter.

---