Karnataka High Court
Waheeduzzaman Imtiaz @ W. Imtiaz vs Assistant Director on 14 September, 2020
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.9847 OF 2020 (GM-ML/PB)
BETWEEN:
WAHEEDUZZAMAN IMTIAZ @ W. IMTIAZ
SON OF LATE ABDUL LATIF,
AGED AOBUT 61 YEARS,
NO 2/3, GROUND FLOOR,
SPENCER ROAD, FRASER TOWN,
BENGALURU - 560 005.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P. USMAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
OF FEMA AND PML ACT,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, 10-A,
JAM NAGAR HOUSE, AKBAR ROAD,
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
2. ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY
AND MEMBER (FINANCE)
UNDER THE PML ACT
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR
(DIRECT OF ENFORCEMENT OF
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA),
3RD FLOOR, B BLOCK,
-2-
BMTC SHANTINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 027.
4. MOHMED MANZOOR KHAN
S/O MR. ABID ALI KHAN,
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
I MONETARY ADVISORY PVT. LTD.
NO 5, LADY CURZON ROAD,
SHIVAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 001
(PRESENTLY LODGED AT
PARAPPANA AGRAHARA CENTRAL PRISON)
PARAPPANA AGRAHARA,
BENGALURU.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, CGSC FOR R1& R3)
-------
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE FOR EVICTION OF
PREMISES DATED 25.08.2020 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT
DIRECTOR HEADQUARTERS INVESTIGATION UNIT (HIU)
DELHI PASSED BY THE R-1 HEREIN AND PRODUCED AS
ANNEXURE-D TO THE MEMORANDUM OF W.P. AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
ORDER
The petition is filed challenging the notice for eviction dated 25th August 2020 issued by the Assistant Director, Headquarters Investigation Unit (HIU), Delhi, passed by Respondent No.1 vide Annexure-D.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is that the petitioner is a tenant in use and occupation of the schedule property having taken it from the fourth respondent on rent on a long term lease of three years. The petitioner is residing in the schedule property with his family members. The petitioner had stopped payment of rent on account of the authorities freezing the account of the fourth respondent in connection with the criminal cases filed against the fourth respondent and others. The said property has been provisionally attached by order dated 27th June 2019 under sub section (1) of Section 5 of Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act of 2002') -4- whereas the said provisional order was subsequently confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority constituted under sub section (3) of Section 8 of the said Act of 2002 vide order dated 19th December 2019 in original complaint No.1156 of 2019.
3. Section 8 of the said Act of 2002 deals with adjudication and sub section (4) of Section 8 deals with where the provisional order of attachment has been confirmed under sub section (3), the authorized officer shall forthwith take the possession of the property attached under Section 5 or frozen under sub section(1A) of Section 17 of the said Act of 2002. In this petition, the Adjudicating Authority has issued notice of eviction of the premises on 25th August 2020 under sub section (4) of Section 8 (Act No.15 of 2002). The petitioner aggrieved by the notice of eviction of premises dated 25th August 2020 has filed this writ petition. -5-
4. Sri Madhukar Deshpande, learned Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) appearing for the respondents No.1 to 3 raised an objection that the petitioner should be relegated to the alternative remedy of an appeal under Section 26 of the said Act of 2002 to the Appellate Authority as the impugned order passed is an appealable order. He submits that taking note of sub section (1) of Section 26 of the said Act of 2002, the appeal lies to the Appellate Tribunal against the decision of the Adjudicating Authority under sub section (4) of Section 8 of the Act of 2002.
5. In order to consider the submission made by the learned CGSC, it is necessary to examine sub- section (1) of Section 26 of the aforesaid Act, which reads thus:
"26. Appeals to the Appellate Tribunal - (1) save as otherwise provided in sub-section(3), the Director or any person aggrieved by an order made by the Adjudicating Authority under this Act, may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal."-6-
Thus, it is evident that the impugned notice is an appealable order and the appeal lies to the Appellate Tribunal under sub section (1) of Section 26 of the said Act 2002.
6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that against the order under sub section (4) of Section 8 of the said Act of 2002, the aggrieved person has a remedy of appeal under Section 26 of the said Act of 2002 and in the fact situation of the case, the petitioner has a remedy to challenge the impugned notice dated 25th August 2020 under Section 26 of the said Act of 2002. The petitioner is at liberty to avail of the aforesaid alternative remedy under Section 26 of the Act. This Court has not adjudicated the dispute. All the contentions of parties are kept open.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
SD/-
JUDGE TL