JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2, the Enforcement Directorate (ED), raises an objection regarding determination of this Court to take up the matter. In the list of determinations, out of the matters assigned by the Chief Justice to be heard by this Court, “matters relating to police” have been excluded. Learned counsel for the ED cites a Notification of this Court dated September 30, 2022, issued by order of the then Chief Justice, which clarifies that matters relating to CBI and Central Agencies in writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are already included within the comprehensive reading of the special category ‘Police’ in the Appellate Side Rules, therefore, there is no need to mention “CBI and Central Agencies” separately. Accordingly the same stood deleted.

2. It is contended that since the ED is a Central Agency, the said exclusion applies to the present case.

3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the present writ petition has not been filed against any inaction or action of the Police or any Central Agency, including the ED. The challenge has been preferred with regard to the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the PMLA”), which is a quasi-judicial statutory authority and not a “Central Agency”.

4. Learned senior counsel also places reliance on an unreported judgment dated December 23, 2022 of a Division Bench of this Court, presided over by the then Hon’ ble Chief Justice himself, in MAT 1762 of 2022 [Directorate of Enforcement, Ministry of Finance Vs. Menka Gambhir and another], where it was observed that if the learned Single Judge had no jurisdiction to pass the order under appeal, then the said order becomes non-est. On the date of the passing of the order, the Learned Single Judge had the determination, as in the present case, to hear residuary matters under Group-IX (excluding matters related to Police inaction etc.). The jurisdiction of the Learned Single Judge was questioned on the ground that the said matter fell under the category of Police inaction. However, the Division Bench held that such plea cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the Hon’ ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Vijay Madanlal Choudhury and others Vs. Union of India and others, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929, has settled that the process envisaged by Section 50 of the PMLA is in the nature of inquiry against the proceeds of crime and is not ‘investigation’ in strict sense of the term for initiating prosecution and the Authorities under the PMLA are not Police Authorities as such. Thus, the objection as to jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge was turned down.

5. Hence, it is argued by the petitioners that this Court has jurisdiction, under its present determination, to entertain and decide the matter.

6. In view of the ratio laid down in the cited Division Bench judgment and keeping in view the extreme urgency pleaded by the petitioners, since short dates are being fixed by the Adjudicating Authority, the matter is being taken up by this Bench.

7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners challenges the impugned order of the PMLA authority on the ground of coram non judice. Section 6(2) of the PMLA stipulates that an Adjudicating Authority shall consist of a Chairperson and two other Members:

Provided that one Member each shall be a person having experience in the field of law, administration, finance or accountancy.

8. Although sub-section (5)(b) stipulates that a Bench may be constituted by the Chairperson with one or two Members as the Chairperson of the Adjudicating Authority may deem fit, since the Adjudicating Authority in the present case is functioning with only one Member, that is, the Chairperson, the option to appoint one or several members under sub-section (5)(b) is not available in the first place.

9. Moreover, the expres