(1.) By consent of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, all these writ petitions are taken up for hearing together, as similar questions of law are involved in these writ petitions, in order to avoid a conflicting judicial opinion. We are also informed that facts are, almost, identical.
(2.) Writ Petition No. 5962 of 2016 is filed challenging the action of the authorities in lodging and enforcing of an Enforcement Case Information Report, being No. ECIR/83/BZ/2010, dated Sept. 22, 2010, and an order of attachment, both provisional and final, under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, the 'PML Act').
(3.) Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, learned Senior Advocate, appearing in support of the writ petitioner, raised a short, but interesting point. He submits that the offences alleged against the writ petitioner are not scheduled offences under the PML Act, and, therefore, the writ petitioner could not be prosecuted under the provisions of the PML Act.