Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rajendra Kumar Murarka vs Mohsina Tabassum & Ors on 2 July, 2021
Author: Rajasekhar Mantha
Bench: Rajasekhar Mantha
02.07.2021
Ct. No.13
Sl. No.6
pk/akd
W.P.A. 10728 of 2021 [via video conference]
[Rajendra Kumar Murarka -Vs- Mohsina Tabassum & Ors.]
Mr. Ashwini Taneja
Mr. Rahul Rai
Mrs. R. Anthony (Jha)
... ... for the petitioner
Mr. Y. J. Dastoor .. Ld. Addl. Solicitor General
... ... for the UOI
Mr. Ranjan Ray
... ... for the ED
The writ petitioner is aggrieved by continuation of an
adjudication pursuant to a provisional attachment order No. 6 of
2020 under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Prevention of
Money Laundering Act, 2020 dated 30.03.2020.
It is submitted that within a period of 180 days the
Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA Act was required not only
to adjudicate but also in aid of such adjudication and further
proceedings, confirm the order of provisional attachment or
extend the validity of the same. Instead, according to the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the authorities have gone ahead and
proceeded with the adjudication. It is argued that the
adjudication is without jurisdiction and the adjudicating authority
becomes functus officio.
The order of provisional attachment has had the effect of
freezing of the bank account of the writ petitioner with the AXIS
Bank and Federal Bank Limited and it is prayed that the
adjudication should be stayed for want of jurisdiction.
Mr. Taneja, learned counsel appearing for the writ
petitioner relies upon a decision of this Court in the case of
2
Knight Riders Sports Private Limited vs. Adjudicating
Authority (PMLA) & Ors. in WPA No. 4845 of 2021 wherein in
similar circumstances, when the adjudicating authority continued
to proceed notwithstanding expiry of 180 days, a stay was
granted by a coordinate Bench.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 & 2
would submit by reference to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition No. 2 of 2020 and Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021, (In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation vs. XXXX) the validity of judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings whether continued or not shall stand extended until further orders.
It is submitted by Mr. Ranjan Ray, learned advocate appearing for the Enforcement Directorate that the writ petitioner's prayer may be barred by principles of waiver, acquiescence and estoppel since the petitioner not only submitted a reply to the show cause notice issued by the adjudicating authority but also participated in the proceedings made detailed submissions and the adjudication process is pending final orders.
Mr. Y. J. Dastoor, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India submits that he had occasion to appear in an earlier proceeding relating to Knight Riders Sports Private Limited (Supra) where the writ petition came up for hearing on the 180th day and subsequently withdrawn. A fresh writ petition was filed and taken up on 9th April, 2021 when order referred by counsel for the petitioner was made. 3
This Court has considered the rival submissions of the parties.
This Court is of the view that the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said suo motu writ petition (Supra) has clearly extended the time for all pending proceedings both judicial and quasi-judicial by reason of the order dated 27th April, 2021. The first order was made on 6th May, 2020. The period of 180 days, therefore, did not expire and the time limit for adjudication of 180 days may be deemed to have extended.
This Court also notes the conduct of the writ petitioner in the facts of the case that he had not only participated in the adjudication but hearing has since been concluded and final orders are awaited. This is a special distinguishing fact in the instant case as opposed to the facts in the Knight Riders Sports Private Limited (Supra).
For the reasons stated hereinabove, this Court is not inclined to stay the proceeding before the adjudicating authority. However, it is ordered that any decision taken by the adjudicating authority, if against the writ petitioner, shall abide by the result of the writ application.
Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed to the writ application within a period of four weeks from date. Reply, if any, be filed within one week thereafter.
Liberty to mention after completion of pleadings. All parties are to act on a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this court.
(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.) 4