The appeal process to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 26 of the PMLA Act is available to persons aggrieved by an order made by the Adjudicating Authority.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner company challenging the impugned order dated 27th January, 2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority under PMLA Act, 2005 in OC 1794/2022 in PAO No. 14/2022 dated 2nd August, 2022. The question raised in this petition is whether the Adjudicating Authority consisting of only one technical member can hear the cases under the PMLA Act, 2005 and pass attachment orders.

3. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the recent judgment of the Telangana High Court in W.P.(C) 34238/2022 titled M/s Hygro Chemicals Pharmtek Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr., and the batch of judgments. It is the contention of the ld. Counsel for the Petitioner that in the said case the Court has not agreed with the view expressed by the ld. Division Bench of this Court in J. Sekar v. Union of India & Ors., 2018 SCC OnLine Del 6523. The argument is that in the said judgement, the Court has held that functions of a body like the Adjudicating authority are quasi-judicial in nature and have trapping of judicial functions and that such such functions can only be decided by a person having legal experience.

4. This Court considered the legal position laid down in J. Sekar v. Union of India & Ors. (supra) which was passed by ld. Division Bench of this Court and has also been followed subsequently in WP(C) 12243/2022 titled Alaknanda Realtors Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Directorate of Enforcement as also Gold Croft Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023/DHC/001436 and Sanjay Jain (IN JC) v. Directorate Of Enforcement, 2023/DHC/000078. Admittedly, the order which is under challenge is a final attachment order which has been passed by the Adjudicating Authority.

5. Mr. Hossain, ld. Senior Standing Counsel submits that an appeal has been filed by the Aggrieved person before the Tribunal. Mr. Rao, ld. Sr. Advocate, on the other hand, submits that the Petitioner was not given an opportunity and there was a violation of principles of natural justice.

6. The court has heard both ld. Counsels for both the parties. This Court has already taken the view that under Section 26 of PMLA Act, any person aggrieved by an order is entitled to approach the Appellate Tribunal. The relevant portion of the judgement dated 4th January, 2023 in Sanjay Jain (IN JC) v. Directorate Of Enforcement, 2023/DHC/000078 is set out below:

"7. Heard. Admittedly, Sh. Pankaj Jain and Sh. Sanjay Jain are brothers. They own equal shares in the properties listed above. The ED is seeking eviction of the occupants from the properties, qua the share of Sh. Pankaj Jain, but the same are under occupation of the family of Sh. Sanjay Jain or tenants. The appeal filed by Sh. Pankaj Jain against whom the attachment order has been finally confirmed, is presently pending before the Appellate Tribunal constituted under Section 25 of PMLA.

8. Appeals to the PMLA Appellate Tribunal are provided for in Section 26 of PMLA. Section 26 of PMLA reads as:

26. Appeal to Appellate Tribunal.

(1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (3), the Director or any person aggrieved by an order made by the Adjudicating Authority under this Act, may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal.

(2) Any reporting entity aggrieved by any order of the Director made under sub-section (2) of section 13, may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal.

(3) Every appeal preferred under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be filed within a period of forty-five days from the date on which a copy of the order made by the Adjudicating Authority or Director is received and it shall be in such form and be accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed: Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may, after giving an opportunity of being heard, entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of forty-five days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it with