R.K.M. POWERGEN PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS the issues involved in all these writ petitions are one and the same, being communications sent by the respondents to various Banks, it would be appropriate to dispose them by a common order. Facts in Brief:

(2.) SUBMISSIONS of the Petitioner: Mr. B. Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order impugned is one without jurisdiction as the respondents do not have the power or authority to freeze the bank accounts. The procedure contemplated under the Prevention of Money -Laundering Act has not been followed and therefore, it would be violation of Articles 3 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. A satisfaction has to be recorded by a person in the cadre of Deputy Director and therefore, the respondents concerned cannot do the same. There is no necessity to freeze the accounts especially when there are civil consequences. Nobody would be benefited by the orders impugned. There is no indication about the necessity to do so for the purpose of investigation. Such an investigation cannot go on for ever affecting the rights of the party. The proceedings do not have any relevancy to the case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation. The petitioner has admittedly not started the mining operation. Even assuming that power is available to the respondents under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money -Laundering Act, 2002, the same cannot be used without any basis, especially when an affidavit has been filed. The impugned orders are contrary to the scheme of the Act. The object of the Act is to prevent the property from being alienated. Even in case of an attachment, a person interested would continue to enjoy the immovable property. There is no proceeds of the crime involved. The respondents have not looked into the relevant materials especially the various letters addressed by the petitioner. Accordingly, it is submitted that the proceedings will have to be quashed.

(3.) REPLY by The Petitioner: -