SHRI DEHATI STAPANA NYAS (TLHPDF) REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS TRUSTEE CUM AUTHORISED PERSON SHRI LAL HEMENDRA PRATAP DEHATI SON OF LATE PATAIT PHANENDRANATH SHAHI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHANDWAN, POST PARSODIH, PS BHAWANATHPUR, DIST GARHWA, JHARKHAND Vs. THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by order dated 10.02.2016 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2896 of 2014, whereby and where under challenge by the appellant writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as appellant ) to order dated 12.05.2014 passed under Sec. 6 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 has failed, the appellant Nyas has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.

(2.) The appellant Dehati Sthapana Nyas (TLHPDL) has pleaded that it was registered on 13.03.2008 in the office of District Registrar, Ranchi. The objective of the Trust is to provide educational facilities in rural areas, which is charitable in nature. It has been issued PAN No. AAITS6216N and the Trust is an individual assessee under Income Tax laws. It has also been granted registration under Sec. 12A/12AA of Income Tax Act, 1961, which exempts the appellant to pay tax on incomes and donations received. To fulfil its objectives, the Trust has started Maa Nagini Shahi Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Nagar Untari which conducts courses of B.A., B.Com and B.Sc and the said institution is the only educational institution for higher education for women at Nagar Untari. It is claimed that the Trust purchased four landed properties over which the said Women's College has been constructed. Order dated 19.12.2013 was passed under Sec. 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, whereby the properties of the Trust were provisionally attached and the said order has been confirmed by the Adjudicating authority vide order dated 12.05.2014 in O.C. No. 238 of 2013.

(3.) Mr. Mahesh Tewari, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that appellant Nyas is a body of individuals covered under Sec. 2(s)(v) which defines person and Sec. 6(15) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 mandates that the Adjudicating Authority shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and while so, order dated 12.05.2014, whereby properties of Nyas have been attached, could not have been passed without hearing the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on decision in Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors. (1998) 8 SCC 1 , to contend that alternative remedy of appeal provided under Sec. 26 is not a bar to entertain the writ petition complaining breach of rules of natural justice.