The court affirmed that the petitioner's grievance must be raised before the Appellate Tribunal as the Adjudicating Authority's failure to consider an application does not preclude the availability of statutory remedies.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

2. The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the final order dated 28th December, 2020, passed by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as "PML Act"), by which the attachment of the bank account of the Petitioner has been confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority.

3. Mr. Vijay Aggarwal, ld. counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner had moved a specific application dated 14th December 2020, in OA no. 396/2020, with the following prayers:

"1. Pass necessary order and direction hereby directing the Applicant (ED) to supply the following document at the earliest:

A. Letter of request dated 12.11.2018, received from central authority of brazil seeking legal assistance in criminal matter from the Applicant (ED) along with all the communication to and from the Brazilian Competent Authority. (Para 1 of original OA)

B. Order dated 02.10.2018, passed by the 7th Federal Criminal Court, Rio De Janerio, Brazil. (Para 2.7 of original OA)

C. Forwarding letter by Central Authority of India (i.e. Ministry of Home Affairs) given to the Applicant (ED) (Para No.5 of Original OA).

D. File of Central Authority of India (i.e. Ministry of Home Affairs) where the request by brazil was Processed.

E. Copy of Reason to believe recoded by the Applicant (ED) for seizure U/s 17(1) of the PMLA, 2002.

F. Authorisation issued by the Deputy Director as mentioned in the punchnama at Page 34 of the Original OA.

G. Clarification sought from the Central Authority of Brazil (mentioned in Para 5 of the amended OA)

H. Amended letter of request dated 08.09.2020 from the Central Authority of Brazil (para no.6 of the amended OA)

So that an effective reply can be filed as per the direction of the Hon'ble AA.

2. Pass any other order/direction as the Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority deem fit."

4. The grievance of Mr. Aggarwal, ld. counsel, is that the said Application has neither been considered nor disposed of by the Adjudicating Authority, while passing the final order dated 28th December 2020. He further submits that the impugned order is without any application of mind, inasmuch as page 83 of the paper book i.e. internal page 34 of the order, continues to set out the bank details of the Petitioner and attachment/freezing of the said bank account to the tune of Rs.5.81 crores. It is a matter of record that when the initial attachment of the bank account had taken place, the Petitioner had approached this Court by filing a writ petition bearing no. W.P.(C) 5235/2020, titled M/S Hamilton Housewares Pvt. Ltd. v. Directorate of Enforcement, in which, vide order dated 26th August, 2020, the amount which was frozen was restricted to a sum of USD 20,000. Despite this order continuing to be operating in favour of the Petitioner, the entire bank account of the Petitioner has been attached by the Directorate of Enforcement, subject to directions of the High Court in the writ petition.

5. Mr. Ravi Prakash, ld. counsel appearing for the Directorate of Enforcement/Respondent No. 2, submits that the impugned order is an appealable order under Section 26 of PML Act, and the Petitioner ought to be relegated to the Appellate Tribunal to pursue his prayers and remedies thereto. He further submits that the Adjudicating Authority is conscious of the orders passed in the writ petition filed by the Petitioner, bearing no. W.P.(C) 5235/2020.

6. Heard ld. counsels for the parties. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the