1. These writ petitions have raised common questions of law of general interest involving provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, “PMLA”) in the context of a case under investigation with Enforcement Directorate of Ministry of Finance in the Government of India (Headquarters Investigation), it having been described as Enforcement Case Information Report No.ECIR/HQ/02/HIU/2015 registered on 27.10.2015 (for short, “ECIR”) and, therefore, have been heard together and are being decided through this common judgment.

THE PETITIONS

2. It may be mentioned at the outset that the first petitioner (Shri Virbhadra Singh) in the first above captioned petition (the first petition or case) has been in active political and public life for last several decades, having been a member of the Union legislature or the legislature of the State of Himachal Pradesh from where he hails, and during such period having served as a Minister of the Union of India or Minister in the cabinet in the Government of Himachal Pradesh, he presently being the Chief Minister. The second petitioner (Smt. Pratibha Singh) of the said first petition is his wife.

3. The names of the other three petitioners (Shri Chunni Lal Chauhan, Shri Vikramaditya Singh and Picheswar Gadde) in the above captioned matters are stated to have figured during the course of investigation, amongst others, into the ECIR thereby giving rise to issuance of summons to them under Section 50(2) and (3) of PMLA for appearing before the competent officer of the Directorate of Enforcement for purposes of investigation. The petitioner (Shri Vikramaditya Singh) of the third above captioned petition (the third petition or case), it be noted, is the son of the petitioners of the first petition.

4. It is claimed in the first petition that summons were issued under Section 50(2) and (3) PMLA by the respondent on 16.11.2015 requiring presence of the petitioners for questioning. Detailed averments have been made with regard to the response of the petitioners pursuant to said summons, facts pertaining which may be elaborated a little later. For the present, it needs to be only noted that the trigger for filing the petition is indicated to be the denial of extension of time for compliance with the summons on the ground that the legislative assembly of the State of Himachal Pradesh was in session till 06.04.2016 in spite of which, through the summons issued by the respondents, it was being insisted that the petitioners appeared on 17.03.2016.

5. The first petition invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) prayed for the grant of the following reliefs:

“(i) pass a writ/order/direction in the nature of certiorari thereby issuing direction to quash and set aside all proceedings and actions taken pursuant to the Enforcement Case Information Report bearing number ECIR/HQ/02/HIU/2015 as the same are without jurisdiction and authority of law;

(ii) pending hearing and adjudication of the subject writ petition, stay all and every proceedings initiated by respondent no.1 in pursuance of the Enforcement Case Information Report bearing number ECIR/HQ/02/HIU/ 2015;

(iii) pending hearing and final disposal restrain the respondents from taking any coercive action against the petitioners;

(iv) issue such other orders/directions as this Hon’ble Court deed fit under the circumstances of the case”

6. Going by the averments in the counter affidavit of the respondents, as submitted on the file of the first petition, the petitioner (Shri Chunni Lal Chauhan) of the second above-mentioned case (the second petition or case has been working for gain as commission agent at Parwanoo Mandi in the State of Himachal Pradesh, it being alleged that certain acts of commission or omission committed by the petitioners of the first petition constituting certain offences, inter alia, punishable under the Prev