JUDGMENT :

Md. Nizamuddin, J.

1. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties.

2. Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the impugned Provisional Attachment Order dated 11th December, 2020 passed by the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate/respondent no. 3 attaching his bank accounts in question under Section 5 (1) of The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 on the ground that the validity of the said impugned Provisional Attachment Order has lost its force and ceased to have any validity under Section 5 (3) of the aforesaid Act after expiry of 180 days on 9th June, 2021 and in view of the fact that the Respondent No. 2/adjudicating authority has not passed any formal order on or before 9th June, 2021 under Section 8(3) of the aforesaid Act for confirmation or further extension of the aforesaid impugned Provisional Attachment Order dated 11th December, 2020.

3. Petitioner contends that after the expiry of 180 days from the date of the aforesaid attachment order, Respondent No. 3 has become functus officio and further there is no provision under the aforesaid Act for automatic or deemed extension of the Provisional Attachment Order under Section 5 (1) of the aforesaid Act. Petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondent no. 3 in not allowing him to operate his bank account in question even after expiry of the validity of the aforesaid order of provisional attachment.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3/Enforcement Authorities opposing the Writ Petition and defending the action of the Respondent No. 3 authority in not allowing the Writ Petitioner to operate the bank accounts in question contends that even without passing any formal order of confirmation or further extension under Section 8 (3) of the Act after the expiry of 180 days of validity of the aforesaid impugned Provisional Attachment Order, the aforesaid impugned Provisional Attachment Order automatically should be deemed to have been extended by claiming benefit of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 23rd March, 2020 in Suo moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 Re-cognizance For Extension Of Limitation which was extended from time to time and lastly on 27th April, 2021 where the Hon’ble Supreme Court in view of the steep rise in Covid-19 Virus cases engulfing the entire nation and the extraordinary situation caused by the outburst of Covid-19 Virus resulting difficulties by the litigants and advocates in filing petitions/applications/suits/appeals and all other proceeding irrespective of period of limitation prescribed in general or special law extended a period of limitation until further orders.

5. Considering the submission of the parties according to me following two short questions of law arise in this case are:

(i) Whether Respondent/Enforcement authorities are entitled to take the benefit of the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 23rd March, 2020 in Suo moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 which was extended from time to time by claiming Respondent No. 2/Adjudicating authority claiming itself as litigant or advocate or a quasi-judicial authority while he himself being an authority to pass the order of confirmation/extension of the aforesaid impugned Provisional Attachment Order after the expiry of validity of aforesaid Attachment order under Section 5 (1) of the Act and in doing so he was not required to institute any proceeding or file any petition/application/suit/appeal before any judicial or quasi judicial authority for confirmation/extension of his aforesaid impugned Order of Attachment under Section 8 (3) of The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002?

(ii) Whether Respondent/Enforcement authorities are justified in law in not allowing the petitioner to operate his bank and postal accounts in question without passing of any formal order of confirmation or extension of the impugned Provisional Attachment Order under Section 8 (3) of the aforesaid Act after the expiry of its va