1. Heard learned counsel for the appearing parties.

2. We have passed our judgment dated 04.03.2011 in K.K. Baskaran Vs. State represented by its Secretary, Tamil Nadu & Ors., reported in (2011) 3 SCC 793 , [LQ/SC/2011/359] by which we have upheld the constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 (for short the Tamil Nadu Act).

3. Subsequently, by our order dated 09.05.2011 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1597 of 2005, we have also upheld the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (for short the Maharashtra Act).

4. We are not permitting any further arguments on the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Act and the Tamil Nadu Act as we have already upheld their constitutional validity.

5. Large scale fraud was played on the innocent public who deposited their hard earned money with certain unscrupulous persons. We have held that the Maharashtra Act and the Tamil Nadu Act to deal with this situation are covered by Entry 1 of List II (The State List) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution because this is likely to disturb the public order.

6. However, if any party wishes to submit that it is not covered by the Maharashtra Act or the Tamil Nadu Act (as the case may be), it is open to him to take independent proceedings before the forum concerned.

7. With these observations, the Appeals are allowed. No costs.

8. Since we have allowed the main Appeals, no orders need be passed on the interlocutory applications.