By consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, all these writ petitions are taken up for hearing together, as similar questions of law are involved in these writ petitions, in order to avoid a conflicting judicial opinion. We are also informed that facts are, almost, identical.

However, for the sake of convenience, we are dealing with the facts in relation to Writ Petition No. 5962 of 2016.

2. Writ Petition No. 5962 of 2016 is filed challenging the action of the authorities in lodging and enforcing of an Enforcement Case Information Report, being No ECIR/83/BZ/2010, dated September 22, 2010, and an order of attachment, both provisional and final, under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [for short, the PML Act].

3. Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, learned senior advocate, appearing in support of the writ petitioner, raised a short, but interesting point. He submits that the offences alleged against the writ petitioner are not scheduled offences under the PML Act, and, therefore, the writ petitioner could not be prosecuted under the provisions of the PML Act.

4. Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog draws our attention to the ECIR at Annexure-B to the writ petition. Our reading of the allegations is that this writ petitioner acquired 17.59 lakh MT of iron ore by extracting the same from outside the leased area and, thus, committed the offences under Sections 120B, 420 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [for short, the PC Act]. However, in the final order of attachment, it is alleged that 29.32 MT iron ore were extracted from outside the leased area.

5. Mr. Nandrajog, submits that those offences were included as scheduled offences only on June 1, 2009. He draws our attention to page 225 of the paper-book to show that the alleged offences were allegedly committed between June 21, 2007 and May 15, 2009. Therefore, he submits that all the offences were allegedly committed prior to the coming into operation of the amendment to the PML Act.

6. Section 2(p) of the PML Act defines that ‘money laundering’ has the meaning assigned to it in Section 3. Section 2(u) provides that the ‘proceeds of crime’ means any property derived or obtained directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property. Section 2(y) defines the ‘schedule offence’ as (i) the offences specified under Part A of the Schedule; or (ii) the offences specified under Part B of the Schedule, if the total value involved in such offences is thirty lakh rupees or more; or (iii) the offences specified under Part C of the Schedule.

7. Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, further, draws our attention to the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering (Amendment) Act, 2009, by which, the offences under Sections 120B, 420, 411 and 471 of Indian Penal Code and the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, were included as the scheduled offences. At page 87 of the paper-book, a copy of the notification issued by the Union Government is produced. It provides that the amended provisions of the PML Act, as amended by the Prevention of Money Laundering (Amendment) Act, 2009, would come into operation on the appointed date, that is, June 1, 2009.

8. Mr. Krishna S Dixit, learned assistant solicitor general, referring to Section 5 of the PML Act, vehemently, submits that the proceedings must continue, as the offences alleged against the writ petitioner are all civil in nature and, therefore, PML Act could be invoked with retrospective effect for the offences committed prior to June 2009.

9. We have bestowed our attention to the submissions made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and the learned assistant solicitor general appearing for the respondent authorities.

10. It can be seen from the records that all the offences allegedly committed by the writ petitioner were e