HIGHSTREET ENTERPRISES (P) LIMITED Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by M/s Highstreet Enterprises (P) Limited for a direction upon the respondents to release the property admeasuring about 10 Kathas comprised within Khata No. 360 of Khewat No. 15 in Rs. Plot No. 1133 (Sub Plot No. 1133/A) at Misirgonda, Kanke Road, (PS No. 191) within the district of Ranchi.

(2.) Briefly stated, ECIR No. ECIR/RSZO/01/2015 was registered by the ED on 30/1/2015. Before that, on an allegation that the accused persons had secured allotment of a coal-block the CBI had registered RC/221/2014/E/0015 on 23/7/2014 under Sec. 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. After the investigation, the CBI has submitted charge-sheet against M/s Domco Pvt. Ltd. and its Directors on 22/12/2015. The petitioner-company has produced a document at page 81 of the supplementary affidavit which records name of the Directors of the petitioner-company. In the complaint filed by the ED under Sec. 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short, PML Act), or the provisional attachment order dtd. 31/3/2018, or the confirmation order dtd. 17/9/2018, name of the Directors of the petitioner-company does not appear anywhere either as accused who have committed money-laundering or as having been involved in any manner whatsoever with commission of the offence under Sec. 3 of the PML Act. Notwithstanding that, the subject-property has been attached by the ED for "value thereof" for an amount of Rs.12.00 Lakhs.

(3.) On behalf of the petitioner-company, it is submitted that the subject-property was purchased by it through a registered sale-deed dtd. 15/6/2016 much before the provisional attachment order was passed on 31/3/2018 by the Deputy Director of the Enforcement Directorate at Ranchi. The petitioner-company or its Directors are not accused either in the cases filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short, CBI) or the Directorate of Enforcement (in short, ED). Mrs. Ritu Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner-company therefore submits that she is not questioning the legality of the provisional and final attachment orders and all that the petitioner-company wants is release of the subject-property which has been attached for "value thereof", on deposit of the "value thereof" amount by the petitioner-company so that it can deal with the subjectproperty in whatever manner it wants. It is submitted that once the subject-property is released from attachment the petitioner-company can legally realise Rs.12.00 Lakhs from the seller so deposited by it and this is the reason the petitioner-company is not required to question the actions taken by the ED in course of the investigation.