P K PARMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, 30 in number, have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code for short) for quashing the orders of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI for short) directing the various banks, financial Institutions and Post offices with which the petitioners have their respective accounts, to freeze those accounts. The CBI claims to have exercised such powers under Section 102 of the Code. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that petitioners 1 and 4-who are brothers have been doing business of the manufacture and sale of phosphate fertilizers in Punjab. Initially they started this business in partnership with four others (not parties to the present petition) under the name and style of M/s Punjab Fertilizers & Pesticide Industries (PFPI for short) with its registered office at Amritsar. The firm continued its business upto 8.6.83 when it was dissolved and business taken over by a Private Limited Company known as the Punjab Phosphates (P) Ltd. (PPPL for short) again with its registered office at Amritsar. Petitioner No. I claims to be its Managing Director while petitioner No. 2, a Director. The Union of India, the first respondent introduced a scheme of subsidy to sustain and ensure the healthy development of phosphate industry in the year 1976. To reap the benefit of this scheme, the firm gave the required undertaking regarding the manufacture and sale of phosphate fertilizers. Although a copy of such undertaking is not available with the petitioners containing the material terms and conditions. One of its terms is claimed to be as follows:.

(2.) An intimation regarding the business of the firm having been taken over by the Company is alleged to have sent to the concerned department of the State Government as well as the Union of India with a request to record the change, with the same Undertaking. In 1986, the Company shifted its factory from Amritsar to Bahadur Garh in the state of Haryana under intimation to the Union of India. Factory, however is alleged to be lving closed since the end of 1987. The firm/Company, claimed amount of subsidy according to their entitlement in respect of the goods actually manufactured and sold from 1980 through May, 1987. Since no sales were carried out thereafter, no claim for any subsidy was prepared either at Amritsar or at Bahadur Garh. The CBI lodged fiveFIRs during the course of investigation in respect of some transactions against some of the petitioners detailed in para 2.6 of the petition. The substance of one of such FIR No.11 of 11-11-1988 is as follows:

(3.) Petitioners 1 and 4 were arrested on 6.12.1988. Their residential as well as business premises were raided and all account books, correspondences. house hold articles, vehicles, bearer bonds. National Saving Certificates, Indra Vikas Patras, Jew- ellery, cash, licensed weapons etc. were seized and taken away. Their accounts in various Banks, post office etc, as detailed in para 2.8 are alleged to have been frozen and operation prohibited by the CBI by writing letters to the aforesaid Banks etc. On enquiry by the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur about the laws under which such directions were issued, CBI clarified by writing to the following effect- (Page 116)