The court emphasized the jurisdiction based on the location of the Appellate Authority, the wide power of the Appellate Tribunal, the limited scope of seeking constitution of a two-member Bench under Section 6(7) of the PMLA, and the need for expeditious appointment of Chairperson and other members of the Adjudicating Authority.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

CM APPL.8330/2023 (for exemption)

2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 2191/2023 & CM APPL.8329/2023

3. The present petition challenges the impugned order dated 25th January, 2023 passed by the Appellate Authority (hereinafter 'AA') under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter 'PMLA'). By the impugned order, the Appellate Authority has rejected an application filed by the Petitioner seeking transfer of the proceedings to a bench in terms of Section 6(7) of the PMLA.

4. A provisional attachment order dated 21st September, 2022 was passed against the Petitioner by the Directorate of Enforcement (hereinafter 'ED') through which various properties and other assets of the Petitioner were attached. The matter was pending before the Appellate Authority, at which stage, the Petitioner moved an application seeking that the case ought to be transferred to the bench consisting of two Members under Section 6(7) of the PMLA and the same has been rejected by the impugned order dated 25th January, 2023, which is under challenge in this petition.

5. The submissions of Mr. Aggarwal, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner are as under.

i. The present writ petition is maintainable before this Court as the Appellate Authority is located in Delhi and is under broad superintendency of this Court.

ii. Though the Appellate Authority can consist of one member, however whenever an application under Section 6(7) is moved, the same would have to be considered only by two members.

iii. The application was rejected without affording an oral hearing.

iv. The alternate remedy before the Appellate Authority would not be efficacious remedy as there has been a violation of principles of natural justice.

6. Mr. Aggarwal, ld. Counsel relies upon the provisions of the Act, especially Section 6 of PMLA as also the decisions of this Court in W.P.(C) 6354/2022 titled M/s. Incred Financial Services Ltd. v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement dated 2nd June, 2022 and W.P.(C) 37/2009 titled Smt. Malini Mukesh Vora v. Union of India & Ors. dated 03rd July, 2009. It is his further submission that even in W.P.(C) 5320/2017 titled J Sekar v. Union of India & Ors., dated 11th January, 2018, a Division Bench of this Court has clearly held that the location of the Appellate Authority would be relevant for entertaining the writ petition before this High Court.

7. Finally, reliance is placed by ld. counsel on the judgment dated 1st February, 2023 of the Supreme Court in W.P.(C) 5393/2010 titled 'M/s. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. The Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority & Ors.', to argue that only when there is a question of law involved, the matter ought to be decided by the High Court instead of dismissing the writ petition on the ground of the availability of an alternate remedy. It is urged that there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice due to the fact that the application for transfer to a bench consisting of two Members under Section 6(7) of the PMLA was not heard.

8. On behalf of the Respondent, Mr. Zoheb Hossain, ld. Counsel for the Respondent relies upon the decision in J. Sekar (supra) to argue that in the said judgment, it has been clearly held that the bench of the Appellate Authority consisting of one member can hear the proceedings under the PMLA Act. It is his submission that this position has been confirmed and reiterated in order dated 12th September, 2022 in W.P. (C) 12243/2022 titled Alaknanda Realtors Pvt Ltd and Ors. v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement. He finally relies upon the decision of this Court in Sanjay Jain v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023/DHC/000078 and Dr. U.S. Awasthi v. Adjudicating Authority PMLA & Anr., 2023/DHC/000265 to argue that the Petitioner ought to be relegated to the Appellate Tribunal.

9. The Court has heard the ld. Counsel for the part