JUDGMENT :

Krishna Rao, J.

1. The petitioners have challenged the show cause notice issued by the Chairperson (Actg), Adjudicating Authority, Prevention of Money Laundering dated 23rd September, 2025 under Section 8(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter called PMLA Act).

2. The primary ground of challenge of the show cause notice dated 23rd September, 2025 is that the Adjudicating Authority was coram non judice. It is contended that a single member who is only acting as Adjudicating Authority even not being a judicial member has issued the show cause notice.

3. Learned Advocates representing the petitioners submits that in terms of Section 6 of PLMA, to pass an order, the provisions of sub-section 5(b) of Section 6 has to be complied with. They submit that the said provision stipulates that a bench may be constituted by a Chairperson of the Adjudicating Authority with one or two members as the Chairperson of the Adjudicating Authority may deem fit. It is further submitted that in the present case, the single member has acted as Adjudicating Authority and has issued show cause notice though there is no coram either of the Chairperson with one member or the Chairperson with two members.

4. The petitioners have relied upon the notification dated 1st July, 2005 and submit that by the said notification, the Central Government, appointed an Adjudicating Authority in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the PMLA, 2002 to exercise of the powers and the authority conferred under the said Act. It is submitted that as per the said notification, the Adjudicating Authority shall consists of a Chairperson and two members but the impugned notice is issued by only one member acting as Adjudicating Authority.

5. The petitioners have brought to the notice of this Court to the notification dated 6th July, 2023 wherein Mr. Pradeep Kumar Upadhyay was appointed as member in the Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA, 2002 but the said Pradeep Kumar Upadhyay has issued the impugned notice as Adjudicating Authority.

6. The petitioners submit that Adjudicating Authority is defined under Section 2(1)(a) of the Act which means an Adjudicating Authority appointed under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act but the show cause notice is issued by the persons who is not an Adjudicating Authority. The petitioners submit that as per Adjudicating Authority (Procedure) Regulation, 2013, every sheet of the order shall bear the signature of the Chairperson and members of the Constituting Bench but the impugned notice is not bears the signatures of the Chairperson and the members constituting the Bench.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment in the case of Eastern Institute for Integrated Learning in Management University through its Acting Vice Chancellor vs. Joint Directorate, Enforcement Directorate & Ors. reported in 2015 SCC OnLine Sikk 217 and submits that in the said case, the Hon’ble Sikkim High Court directed the concerned authorities of the Central Government for appointment of judicial member of the Adjudicating Authority and only on appointment of judicial member, the Chairperson of the Judicial Authority shall constitute a Bench consisting of a judicial member and only after constitution of the bench, shall issue notice upon the petitioners.

8. ‘The petitioners have relied upon the judgment in the case of Eastern Institute for Integrated Learning in Management University through its Acting Vice Chancellor vs. Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India & Ors. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Sikk 64 and submit that constitution of the Bench without a judicial member not proper.

9. The petitioners have relied upon the judgment in the case of Gujarat Enviro Protection and Infrastructure Limited vs. Union of India & Ors. passed in Special Civil Application No. 10573 of 2015 wherein the Gujarat High Court and submit that after issuance of notice by the Gujarat High Court, the respondent authorit