The main legal point established in the judgment is that the extended period of limitation due to the COVID-19 pandemic does not apply to the validity period of the provisional attachment order under Section 5(1) of the PMLA.

JUDGMENT

Prakash Shrivastava, CJ. - This intra-court appeal is at the instance of the Enforcement Directorate challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 27th of June, 2022 whereby WPA 9699 of 2022 filed by the respondent nos. 3 and 4 herein (writ petitioners) has been allowed and the provisional attachment order dated 30th of September, 2021 has been set aside with all consequential benefits.

2. The respondent nos. 3 and 4 had filed the writ petition with the plea that respondent no. 3 is one of the directors of M/s. HAP Garments Private Limited and M/S. K.P. Garments Private Limited and the respondent no. 4 is a silent director of M/s. K.P. Garments Private Limited. The appellant no. 1, Directorate of Enforcement, had registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) being ECIR No. ECIR/06/KLZO/2021 dated 17th of February, 2019 against the respondent nos. 3 and 4 and their companies on the basis of the First Information Report (FIR) registered by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against them. The provisional attachment order dated 30th of September, 2021 was passed under the provisions of The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, 'PMLA'). The show-cause notice dated 18th of November, 2021 was issued to the respondent nos. 3 and 4, who had submitted their reply on 3rd of January, 2022. The respondent nos. 3 and 4 took the plea in the petition that 180 days mandatory period for confirmation of the provisional attachment order had expired on 31st of March, 2022 and before that, the competent authority had failed to pass any formal order of confirmation or extension of validity of the provisional attachment order dated 30th of September, 2021, therefore, the authority had become functus officio. In the writ petition filed on 26th of May, 2022, a prayer was made to set aside the provisional order of attachment and the original complaint being OC No. 1550 of 2021 and ECIR being ECIR/06/KLZO/2020.

3. The respondent nos. 3 and 4 have succeeded before the learned Single Judge.

4. Submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that the appellants were not permitted to file the affidavit-in-opposition before the learned Single Judge and the writ petition was decided on the first date itself. He further submits that by virtue of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3/2020 extending the period of limitation, the 180 days period prescribed under Section 5 of the PMLA also got extended. He has also submitted that learned Single Judge has set aside not only the order under Section 5 of the PMLA but also the consequential proceedings including the proceedings under Section 8 of the PMLA which are independent proceedings.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 opposing the appeal has submitted that opportunity of hearing was given before the learned Single Judge and that the writ petition was not decided on the first date. He further submits that the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in SMW (C) No. 3 of 2020 extending the period of limitation will not apply to the proceedings under Section 5 of the PMLA. He has also supported the order of the learned Single Judge granting consequential relief.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2, Union of India, has supported the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants.

7. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

8. The first question which arises for consideration is as to whether the period of validity of 180 days prescribed for the provisional attachment order under Section 5(1) of the PMLA will get extended by virtue of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SMW (C) No. 3 of 2020. (In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation).

9. Section 5 of the PMLA deals with the attachment of property involved in money laundering. Section 5(1) of the PMLA provides for passing the provisional order of attachment for the specified period of 180 d