DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT Vs. SSR INFRA & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Intra -Court appeal impugns the order dated 20th March, 2012 of the learned Single Judge allowing W.P.(C) No. 804/2012 preferred by the respondent no.1 and imposing costs of Rs.50,000/ - on the appellant herein. The said writ petition was preferred seeking direction to the appellant to decide the representation made by the respondent no.1 to the appellant. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the learned Single Judge, finding a prima facie case to have been made out by the respondent no.1/writ petitioner, directed the appellant to examine the said representation. The appellant in compliance of the said direction passed order dated 17th February, 2012 on the said representation. The learned Single Judge has in the impugned judgment held that the appellant had in the order dated 17th February, 2012 not dealt with the grievance and accordingly proceeded to consider the same on merits and decided in favour of the respondent no.1. The costs as aforesaid have been imposed on the appellant for the reason of having not dealt with the grievance/representation appropriately. Before we discuss the merits of the decision, we may take notice of the preliminary argument of the counsel for the appellant (and which argument was raised before the learned Single Judge also) that the relief claimed by the respondent no.1 in the writ petition being only for mandamus for consideration of his representation, stood granted by the direction given by the learned Single Judge on 8th February, 2012 therefor and the writ petition ought to have been disposed of and the learned Single Judge ought not to have gone into the merits of the matter. The learned Single Judge in this regard has held that since the appellant inspite of direction had failed to deal with the grievance or to adjudicate the same and had merely "disposed of" the representation, the Court was entitled to deal with the same on merits rather than leaving the respondent no.1 to file a fresh petition.

(2.) THOUGH undoubtedly in certain situations it has been held by the Courts that the challenge to a decision taken in pursuance to directions of the Court furnishes a fresh cause of action but in the present case the writ petition was not disposed of by issuing such direction but in view of the urgency was kept pending and we, in exercise of our appellate powers do not deem it appropriate to interfere with the procedure followed by the learned Single Judge in this case.

(3.) THE appellant has initiated proceedings against the said Shri Rajiv Chanana under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) and finding the said Shri Rajiv Chanana to have got prepared the demand drafts aforesaid for Rs.30 lacs in favour of Jammu Development Authority attached the same. The Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA accordingly passed an order of attachment of the said sum of Rs.30 lacs and which resulted in the development of the aforesaid commercial site being held up. The representation made by the respondent no.1 to the appellant was in this regard.