V. Ramasubramanian, J.

1. Challenging a Provisional Attachment Order passed by the Enforcement Directorate and the proceedings initiated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA, 2002), the petitioner came up with the writ petition in W.P.No.37487 of 2012.

2. Pending disposal of the writ petition, the petitioner sought interim suspension of the impugned Provisional Attachment Order. On 11-12-2012, a learned Judge of this Court granted interim suspension, in WPMP.No.47572 of 2012.

3. As against the interim suspension order granted by the learned single Judge in WPMP.No.47572 of 2012 in W.P.No.37487 of 2012, the Enforcement Directorate filed an appeal in W.A.No.133 of 2013. A Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ appeal by an order dated 31-12-2014.

4. Thereafter, the Bank of Baroda came up with an application in WAMP.No.155 of 2016 in the disposed of writ appeal seeking a clarification as to whether the fixed deposits lying with them to the tune of Rs.255 crores should be released to the writ petitioner, in view of the interim suspension granted by the learned single Judge in the writ petition, which was also confirmed in the writ appeal.

5. Actually, the main writ petition was before a learned single Judge and the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the Bank of Baroda in the disposed of writ appeal, came up before us for hearing. When the Miscellaneous Petition was heard, the learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that it would be better to take up the writ petition for disposal rather than dealing with the Miscellaneous Petition in the disposed of writ appeal. Thereafter, orders were passed by the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice, posting the writ petition along with Miscellaneous Petition in the writ appeal. This is how both are before us.

6. We have heard Mr. S. Ravi, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, Mr. Nagaraj, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Enforcement Directorate and Mr. Narender Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the bank.

7. It is not necessary for us to deal with the Miscellaneous Petition in the disposed of writ appeal, as the outcome of the same would depend upon the outcome of the writ petition. Therefore, we shall take up the writ petition for disposal first.

Background facts:

8. The background facts leading to the Provisional Order of Attachment passed by the Enforcement Directorate could be summarized in brief as follows:

(a) Satyam Computer Services Limited was a listed company having about 3 lakhs shareholders and 53,000 employees, with a presence in over 60 countries. At the relevant point of time, it was the fourth largest Information Technology Company in India.

(b) On 07-01-2009, the Chairman and Managing Director of the company by name B. Ramalinga Raju sent short waves across the board, by making startling revelations, to the effect that the books of accounts of the company reflected fictitious cash and bank balances to the tune of about Rs.5040 crores and an understated liability of Rs.1230 crores and that none of the Board Members had any clue about the situation in which the company was.

(c) Shocked at the sathyam (truth) coming out of (A)Satyam, in such a fashion, the Government of India initiated prompt action, by filing an application through the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, before the Company Law Board. The application was filed on 09-01-2009 under Sections 388B, 397, 398, 401, 402, 403 read with 406 and 408 of the Companies Act, 1956.

(d) The reason as to why the Government of India intervened to take prompt action within 48 hours, as stated in their application before the Company Law Board, was that the company had to be maintained as a going concern, in order to protect the interests of 53,000 employees and more than 3 lakhs share holders. In the applic