Farida Begum Biswas v. Union of India & Ors.

1. The appellants in these two appeals are aggrieved by a 2017:DHC:8899-DB common show cause notice dated 19^ June, 2015 issued to them under Section 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in OC No.501/2015 as well as the provisional attachment order dated 21®' May, 2015 under Section 5 of the same enactment which has been issued by respondent No.2.

2. Aggrieved by the order dated 21®' May, 2015, two writ petitions came to be filed before the learned single Judge, i.e.. Writ Petition (Civil) No.8266/2015 Farida Begum Biswas V. Union of India & Ors. (appellant in LPA 628/2015) and Writ Petition (Civil) No.8359/2015 Barik Biswas V. Union of India & Ors. (appellant in LPA 643/2015). These two writ petitions were dismissed by the judgment dated 2"^ September, 2015 of the learned Single Judge holding that the petitioners had an equally effective and efficacious remedy by way of an appeal under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and that invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court by way of the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia was not appropriate at that stage. In view of this finding, the learned Single Judge refrained from entering upon the merits of the case, taking a view that it would amount to scuttling the statutorily drafted mechanism in the legislation. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants have filed the present appeals.

3. When these appeals were listed for the first time on September, 2015, this Court had directed that it was open to respondent No.3, the Adjudicating Authority, to proceed with the enquiry under Section 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, but a final order, if any, passed thereon shall not be acted upon. This interim order had continued to operate till date.

4. We are informed by Mr.Sanjay Jain, learned ASG appearing for the respondents, that in compliance of the directions by this Court on 22"^^ September, 2015, respondent No.3 has continued with the adjudication process and has recorded a final order dated 20"^ October, 2015. However, in deference to the interdiction by this Court, the said order has not been acted upon.

5. We have heard the learned senior counsels for the appellants for some time. The reasoning of the learned Single Judge in holding that the petitioner had the statutory remedy of appeal, under Section 26 of the Prevention of ^ Money Laundering Act, 2002 to the Appellate Tribunal, cannot be faulted with. It also cannot be contested that the same is such an effective and efficacious alternate remedy which would preclude a challenge by way of invoking of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. Even otherwise, we are of the view that challenge to the show cause notice dated 19"^ June, 2015 ought notto be entertained inasmuch as the appellants would have an opportunity to place their case before the Adjudicating Authority who would deal with the matter on the merits of the case. The challenge to the notice to show casue is premature as well.

7. In this view ofthe matter, Mr.Sidharth Luthra, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellant inLPA 643/2015 and Mr. Farook M. Razak, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant in LPA 628/2015, submit that they have instructions to withdraw the present appeals with liberty to pursue the appropriate remedy under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. It is further prayed that keeping in view the fact that the appellants were prosecuting the writ petitions as well as the present appeals, they may be given the benefit ofthe period which has been passed in the prosecution of these legal remedies for the purposes ofcomputation ofthe period oflimitation in filing the appeals. In view ofthe above, it is directed as follows:

(i) As prayed, the present appeals and the applications are dismissed as withdrawn;

(ii) It is directed that if the appellants file appeals under

Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act within a period of three weeks from today, these appeals shall not be rejected on the ground that the same arefiled beyond statutory period of limitation;

(iii) It is further directed that interim protection granted to the appellants by the order dated 22'"^ September, 2015 shall continue for a period of three weeks from today. The above appeals and the applications are dismissed as withdrawn in the above terms. I \ ACTWGCHlEFJUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA, J MAY 11, 2017 <