MUMBAI, May 9 -- The Bombay High Court on Friday directed the state government to appoint a new competent authority under the Maharashtra Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) (MPID) Act, 1999 after noticing that the current authority had committed "fraud" by disposing off properties attached in the National Spot Exchange Limited (NSEL) case at throwaway prices. "We find that the competent authority has played fraud not only upon the state but also upon the court," the division bench of justices AS Gadkari and Kamal Khata said while setting aside the sale of a prime property in Karnal, Haryana, and ordering the Maharashtra government to investigate the matter and take appropriate action against members of the authority and Quiker Realty, a property valuer. The court was hearing a bunch of appeals filed by Primezone Developers Pvt Ltd and others, challenging an order passed by the special MPID court on February 6, 2018, confirming attachment of Promezone's properties in Karnal. As chief financial officer of Dunar Foods Ltd and director of PD Agro Processor Pvt Ltd, Ranjeev Agarwal, who later became chairman of Primezone, had allegedly laundered Rs.31 crore received from NSEL and invested in Primezone Developers. Resultantly, in August 2014, their two properties, totaling to 35.768 acres and located in Assandh Road in Karnal district of Haryana, were attached. On February 6, 2018, the special MPID court made the attachment absolute and in August 2020, the properties were sold in an auction to Rudraveerya Developers Ltd. Though the first two auction notices mentioned a reserve price of Rs.60 crore, the property was sold to Rudraveerya Developers for just Rs.10 crore following a subsequent auction notice, which was published only on the Quiker Realty website without mentioning the reserve price. The high court bench was irked to note that the June 2020 valuation report described the land as agricultural, though it was in a residential zone. The court refused to accept the argument advanced on behalf of the competent authority, that the license to develop the property had lapsed between the two valuations and therefore it had been assessed as agricultural land the second time....