JUDGMENT : Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The Appellant, in the present appeal, challenges the order dated 04.02.2022 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court, Cuttack, in I.A. No.03 of 2019, on the grounds that the impugned order suffers from gross procedural irregularities and was rendered in violation of settled principles of natural justice. I. F ACTUAL M ATRIX OF THE C ASE 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) The Appellant companies, M/s Odisha Homes Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Trisat Estates & Construction Pvt. Ltd., are engaged in the real estate business, including providing plots and flats to customers. Both companies are represented by their respective Managing Directors and operate within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. (ii) On 30.01.2018, one Shri Ashish Pattanaik lodged a written report before the Superintendent of Police, EOW, Bhubaneswar Police Station. It was alleged that M/s Odisha Homes Pvt. Ltd. was offering flats under a housing project titled “Anand Homes” at Mouza Kuha, Jatni Tahasil, District Khordha. The informant, attracted to the project, expressed his intention to purchase a 2BHK flat. On 27.04.2011, he deposited a booking amount of Rs. 20,000/-, and an agreement was executed between him and one of the company’s Directors. Subsequent payments of Rs. 5,30,000/- were made on various dates. (iii) According to the informant, under the agreement, the flat was to be handed over within two years. However, the construction was not completed within the stipulated time, and by 2014, the company’s office at Nayapalli was closed. Based on this report, EOW Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No. 02 of 2018 was registered on 30.01.2018 under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B IPC, along with Section 6 of the Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2011 (OPID Act), and investigation commenced. (iv) The Managing Director of M/s Odisha Homes Pvt. Ltd., Appellant No. 3, was arrested on 31.01.2018 and remanded to custody. A bail application was filed before the Designated Court under the OPID Act, Cuttack, which was rejected. Subsequently, in BLAPL No. 2666 of 2018, this Court granted interim bail to Appellant No. 3 for 126 days. The Appellants surrendered before the Designated Court within the stipulated period. A bail application was filed before the Designated Court under the OPID Act, Cuttack, which was rejected. Subsequently, in BLAPL No. 2666 of 2018, this Court granted interim bail to Appellant No. 3 for 126 days. The Appellants surrendered before the Designated Court within the stipulated period. (v) During the investigation, statements of witnesses and several investors were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Upon completion of the investigation, charge-sheet No. 63, dated 31.12.2018, was submitted against the Appellants and others for the alleged offences. (vi) During the proceedings, certain properties of the companies were seized. The State of Odisha, represented through the Additional District Magistrate-cum-Competent Authority, Cuttack, filed I.A. No. 03 of 2019 under Section 4(3) of the OPID Act, seeking an ad interim order of attachment. By order dated 04.02.2022, the learned Designated Court, Cuttack, directed the sale of immovable properties listed in Schedule-A through public auction, the realization of amounts from frozen accounts, and the distribution of proceeds among depositors/investors. (vii) Some of the Directors of the Appellant companies filed CRLA No. 171 of 2022 before this Court, which was disposed of by order dated 28.03.2022. Thereafter, SLP (Crl.) No. 4427 of 2022 was filed before the Supreme Court and dismissed by order dated 13.05.2022. (viii) The present appeal has been filed by the Appellants, aggrieved by the order dated 04.02.2022 passed in I.A. No. 03 of 2019 by the learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court, Cuttack, under the OPID Act. (ix) In I.A. No. 382 of 2025, the Appellants seek the release of 10 out of 31 attached properties, proposing to sell them in a phased manner and utilize the proceeds towards the payment of dues to home buyers. The total value of the attached properties exceeds the outstanding liability, and the Appellants seek the release of properties commensurate with the pending dues. II. S UBMISSIONS O N B EHALF O F T HE A PPELLANTS 3. Learned counsel for the Appellants earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) The Appellants submitted that the impugned order dated 04.02.2022, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court under the OPID Act, Cuttack, suffers from gross illegality, arbitrariness, and non- application of judicial mind, having been passed without due consideration of the materials available on record. (ii) The Appellants contended that the order was passed mechanically and without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing. (ii) The Appellants contended that the order was passed mechanically and without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Appellant No. 3, who was in custody and representing the companies, was not produced before the learned Designated Court during the interim application, thereby vitiating the proceedings. (iii) The Appellants asserted that the ex parte nature of the order violated the principle of audi alteram partem, effectively debarred them from participating in the proceeding, and rendered the order unsustainable in law. (iv) The Appellants submitted that the learned Designated Court failed to consider the investments already made by Appellant No. 3 in construction and the value of the land, and instead proceeded on the premise that the attached properties would realize less than the alleged collections, an assertion the Appellants claim is a perverse finding. (v) The Appellants contended that several customers had also filed complaints before the Odisha Real Estate Regulatory Authority, including Execution Case No. 20 of 2021, which were not brought to the attention of the Designated Court by the prosecution. This, the Appellants argued, constitutes multiplicity of proceedings on the same cause of action. (vi) The Appellants asserted that the valuation of the attached properties was made at a figure much lower than the actual government valuation, allegedly with mala fide intent, and that the Designated Court failed to examine this aspect. (vii) The Appellants submitted that once an attachment order under the OPID Act has been made absolute, there is no further scope for investigation at that stage. A plain reading of Section 11 of the OPID Act, read with Section 9(6), shows that investigation is only relevant during the ad-interim stage. Once the order is made absolute, the only remedy available is appeal before this Court, not modification by the Designated Court. (viii) The Appellants contended that the attachment of 31 properties in this case has already been made absolute, and such an order could not be modified thereafter by the Designated Court. (ix) The Appellants asserted that the scope of investigation before the Designated Court is confined to the criminal trial, whereas the attachment proceeding under the OPID Act is civil in nature. (x) The Appellants contended that, according to the charge-sheet, the alleged liability against them is quantified at Rs. 7,54,39,568/-. Of this, Rs. 1,15,22,934/- has already been refunded to buyers, leaving a balance of Rs. 6,36,82,266/-. (x) The Appellants contended that, according to the charge-sheet, the alleged liability against them is quantified at Rs. 7,54,39,568/-. Of this, Rs. 1,15,22,934/- has already been refunded to buyers, leaving a balance of Rs. 6,36,82,266/-. Given the magnitude of the liability, discharging it in one lump sum is not feasible. (xi) The Appellants submitted that the total value of the attached properties is approximately Rs. 40,00,00,000/-, which is far in excess of the balance liability. They have therefore sought a phased release of the attached assets so that the proceeds from the sale can be utilized to clear the dues of home buyers in a systematic and equitable manner. III. S UBMISSIONS O N B EHALF O F T HE R ESPONDENT 4. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) The OPID Act is a self-contained code that provides a complete mechanism for remedies of the nature now sought. Any relief must, therefore, be pursued strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act. (ii) By filing the present interlocutory application, the Appellant is effectively seeking to vacate the ad-interim order of attachment concerning certain properties without following the due process under the OPID Act. Such a course is impermissible. (iii) Section 11 of the OPID Act specifically requires that an application for the release of attached property be made before the Designated Court upon furnishing sufficient and satisfactory security commensurate with the value of the property. In the present case, the Appellant has directly approached this Court for release without availing this statutory remedy, which is not maintainable. (iv) It is a settled principle of law that where a statute prescribes a particular manner of doing a thing, it must be done in that manner only and not through any other means. The Appellant’s attempt to bypass the procedure under Section 11 of the OPID Act would render the statutory scheme nugatory. (v) The Appellant has the option of invoking Section 11 at any stage before the Designated Court to ventilate his grievances and obtain appropriate relief. (vi) Section 11 has been enacted to safeguard the interests of depositors and ensure that banks or financial institutions acting bona fide are not prejudiced by arbitrary attachment, provided they are willing to furnish adequate security. (vi) Section 11 has been enacted to safeguard the interests of depositors and ensure that banks or financial institutions acting bona fide are not prejudiced by arbitrary attachment, provided they are willing to furnish adequate security. The present application, which seeks to bypass these statutory safeguards, is therefore liable to be rejected. IV. F INDINGS O F P RESIDING O FFICER , D ESIGNATED C OURT UNDER THE OPID A CT , C UTTACK 5. The Presiding Officer, Designated Court under the OPID Act, Cuttack, heard the applicant, noted the ex parte status of the Opposite Parties after personal service and newspaper publication, and, upon reviewing the pleadings, the testimony of P.W.1 (the Additional District Magistrate, Cuttack, notified as Competent Authority by Finance Department Notification No. 31732/F dated 10.10.2013) and P.W.2 (the Investigating Officer, EOW), as well as Exhibits 1–57, recorded that the Government had already passed an ad-interim order of attachment under Section 3 vide Order No. 39167/F dated 15.12.2018, transferring control of specified movable and immovable properties to the Competent Authority. It was noted that the ensuing application under Section 4(3) was filed in a timely manner, seeking confirmation of that attachment and directions for the sale of the properties by public auction, along with the realization of amounts from frozen bank accounts. 6. The Court, based on incorporation records, advertising materials, depositor statements, and transaction trails proved through the exhibits, treated M/s Odisha Homes Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Trisat Estates & Construction Pvt. Ltd. (and related entities) as “Financial Establishments” within the meaning of Section 2(d). It accepted that, through brochures, leaflets, and newspaper advertisements for the “Ananda Homes” and “Royal Homes” projects, deposits and installments were collected from the public with promises of 2BHK/3BHK flats in Kuha, Jatni. The investigation was deemed to have established collections of Rs. 7,54,39,568 from 153 intending buyers, non- delivery of flats within the promised two-year period, closure of the company’s office by May 2014, and no refunds. 7. On the evidentiary record, the Court noted the seizure and freezing of assets, the tracing of property acquisitions and banking transactions to depositor funds, and the pattern of acquisitions in the names of the Managing Director, Directors, and associates, including transfers to related companies (notably amounts credited to Trisat Estates & Construction Pvt. Ltd. and Bharati Infra). 7. On the evidentiary record, the Court noted the seizure and freezing of assets, the tracing of property acquisitions and banking transactions to depositor funds, and the pattern of acquisitions in the names of the Managing Director, Directors, and associates, including transfers to related companies (notably amounts credited to Trisat Estates & Construction Pvt. Ltd. and Bharati Infra). Despite service and publication, no show-cause or third-party objections were filed under Section 9(3), permitting the statutory progression to confirmation under Section 9(4). 8. The Court also observed that the attached immovable assets, valued at approximately Rs. 1,05,92,291, together with frozen bank balances of about Rs. 8,87,434 (aggregating to Rs. 1,14,79,725), were substantially lower than the total sums collected from depositors. It invoked the proviso to Section 9(6), emphasizing that release from attachment could not be considered unless sufficient value to secure repayment remained under attachment. 9. Treating the attachment process as civil in character and aimed at protecting depositors while the criminal investigation continued, the Court made absolute the Government’s ad-interim attachment dated 15.12.2018. It directed the sale of the Schedule-A immovable properties by public auction, authorized realization from the frozen accounts, and ordered equitable distribution of the proceeds among depositors. The interlocutory application was allowed ex parte, without costs. V. C OURT ’ S R EASONING AND A NALYSIS 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the record, it is apposite to first note the statutory scheme under the Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2011. 12. Under Section 3, the State Government may, if satisfied that any property has been acquired through depositor funds, pass an ad-interim order of attachment of such property. 13. Section 4(3) requires the Competent Authority to approach the Designated Court within the prescribed time for the confirmation of the ad-interim attachment and for appropriate directions, which may include the sale of the attached properties by public auction and the realization of amounts from frozen accounts. 14. Section 9 outlines the procedure before the Designated Court, which includes notice to affected persons and providing liberty for any person claiming an interest to object before orders are passed. Where no objections are raised, the Designated Court is mandated to make the ad- interim order absolute and direct the sale. 14. Section 9 outlines the procedure before the Designated Court, which includes notice to affected persons and providing liberty for any person claiming an interest to object before orders are passed. Where no objections are raised, the Designated Court is mandated to make the ad- interim order absolute and direct the sale. The proviso to Section 9(6) restricts the release from attachment unless the Court is satisfied that the value of the remaining property under attachment is sufficient to ensure repayment to depositors. 15. Section 11 establishes the specific statutory route for the release of attached property, requiring the applicant to furnish security to the satisfaction of the Designated Court. The Act is self-contained, depositor-protective, and prescribes both the process for confirming the attachment and the exclusive mechanism for any release thereafter. 16. Applying the above to the present case, the record discloses that the Government passed an ad-interim attachment on 15.12.2018, the Competent Authority filed the interlocutory application within time, notices were served and, where necessary, published, the Opposite Parties did not file show-cause or objections, and evidence was led through the Competent Authority and the Investigating Officer with extensive documentary support. 17. Based on this material, the Designated Court recorded findings regarding the receipt of deposits from a large number of investors, non- delivery of promised flats, non-refunds, and the tracing of acquisitions and bank movements to depositor funds. In view of the non-appearance of the Opposite Parties despite service and publication, the statutory consequence under Section 9 followed. 18. The Designated Court also referred to the proviso to Section 9(6), emphasizing that release from attachment cannot be considered unless the remaining property value is sufficient to secure repayment to depositors. The pleas now urged regarding lack of opportunity, undervaluation, and pendency before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority do not present any jurisdictional issues that would affect the Designated Court’s exercise of authority. Notice had been issued and published, no objection under Section 9(3) was filed, and no contrary valuation or ownership material was placed before the Designated Court. 19. The Act itself provides a specific remedy under Section 11 for seeking the release of attached property upon furnishing adequate security before the Designated Court. An attempt to bypass that statutory route through an appeal cannot be accepted within the framework of the Act. 19. The Act itself provides a specific remedy under Section 11 for seeking the release of attached property upon furnishing adequate security before the Designated Court. An attempt to bypass that statutory route through an appeal cannot be accepted within the framework of the Act. On this record, there is nothing perverse in the factual conclusions drawn by the Presiding Officer or in the application of the statutory provisions that would warrant appellate interference. 20. Regarding the ex parte nature of the order, this Court is not persuaded that any unfairness has been caused. The record reflects that notices were duly served upon the companies and their Directors, including service upon Appellant No. 3 while in judicial custody. Where personal service could not be effected, publication was made in widely circulated newspapers. Some of the Opposite Parties entered appearance through counsel but later failed to pursue the matter; others remained absent. In such circumstances, Section 9(3) of the OPID Act conferred the right to file objections, but no objections were filed. Section 9(4) further obligates the Designated Court to proceed and make the ad-interim order absolute if no cause is shown. The statutory mandate being clear, the mere fact that the order was ex parte does not automatically imply a breach of natural justice. The opportunity was available but not availed, and the process satisfies the requirements of fairness under the law. 21. In the absence of any demonstrable perversity, patent illegality, or material irregularity, this Court finds no ground to intervene with the order dated 04.02.2022 of the Presiding Officer, Designated Court under the Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2011, in I.A. No. 03 of 2019. VI. CONCLUSION: 22. In view of the statutory scheme under the OPID Act, the findings recorded by the Presiding Officer, Designated Court, cannot be said to suffer from any perversity or illegality. 23. The attachment was made in accordance with Sections 3, 4, and 9, notices were duly served and published, opportunity was afforded but not availed, and the ex parte nature of the order does not, in the circumstances, vitiate the proceedings. The Designated Court was bound by the legislative mandate to make the attachment absolute and to protect the interests of depositors. No jurisdictional error or violation of settled principles of law has been demonstrated to warrant interference. 24. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 25. The Designated Court was bound by the legislative mandate to make the attachment absolute and to protect the interests of depositors. No jurisdictional error or violation of settled principles of law has been demonstrated to warrant interference. 24. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 25. Interim order, if any, passed earlier shall stand vacated.