IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the application filed by the Appellant was not maintainable, and the Adjudicating Authority's Order did not warrant any interference.

JUDGMENT

1. The Appellant seeks to challenge the Judgment dated 20.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) 2191/2023 upholding the Order dated 25.01.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ' PMLA') disposing of an application filed by the Appellant herein wherein the Appellant had prayed for deferment of the proceedings before Adjudicating Authority on the ground that the Bench at that point of time suffered from "coram non-judice" as no Adjudicating Authority had been constituted in terms of Section 2 (a) read with Section 6 (1) and (2) of the PMLA, 2002.

2. The facts as stated by the Appellant in the writ petition are that the State Bank of India lodged a complaint on 25.08.2020 alleging that the accused had committed diversion of funds for the purposes other than the funds were availed from the State Bank of India. An FIR bearing No. RC2232022A0002 dated 07.02.2022 was registered by CBI for the commission of the alleged offence under Section 409, 420 r/w Section 120-B of IPC, 1860 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Appellant was not named as an accused in the aforesaid FIR. The Respondent/Enforcement Directorate (ED) registered an ECIR bearing No. ECIR/AMZO/11/2022 dated 15.02.2022 against the Appellant and other accused persons. A Provisional Attachment Order bearing No.08/2022 dated 21.09.2022 was passed under Section 5(1) of the PMLA, 2002. Original Complaint bearing No.1824/2022 was filed by the Respondent/Enforcement Directorate on 19.10.2022 before the Adjudicating Authority for adjudication of the complaint and for passing Orders by confirming the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO).

4. It is also stated by the Petitioner that a chargesheet has been filed by the CBI with respect to the predicate offence before the Ld. Special Judge, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi. The Petitioner, thereafter, filed an application, from which the instant proceedings arise, before the Adjudicating Authority contending that:

(1) the quorum of the Adjudicating Authority is not functional in terms of Section 2 of the PMLA, 2002;

(2) that the Petitioner has not been supplied with a copy of 'Reasons to Believe' by the Respondent/Enforcement Directorate because of which the Provisional Attachment Order has been passed under Section 5(1) of the PMLA. The said application was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority by an Order dated 25.01.2023.

The said Order dated 25.01.2023 was challenged by the Appellant herein by filing a writ petition i.e., W.P. (C) 2191/2023 before this Court by contending, inter alia, that (a) the petitioner was not given any hearing in the application which had been rejected by the Adjudicating Authority vide Order dated 25.01.2023 which is contrary to the principles of natural justice; and (b) the said application could not have been heard by the Chairperson sitting singly as the Bench was not in consonance with the provisions of PMLA, 2002. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the grounds that (a) the Petitioner ought to have approached the Appellate Tribunal under Section 26 of the PMLA and a writ petition is not the remedy; (b) under Section 6(5)(b) of the PMLA, a Bench may be constituted by the Chairperson of the Adjudicating Authority with one or two members as Chairperson and it is possible to have a single Member Bench; and (c) Section 6(7) of the PMLA does not contemplate an application being moved by a party to seek constitution of a two Member Bench and if such an application is permitted, it may lead to a situation where a Party/entity will in every case move an application for constitution of such a Bench merely to delay the proceedings. It is this Judgment dated 20.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge which is under challenge in the present appeal.

5. Mr. Vijay Aggarwal, learned Counsel