ANANT S. DAVE, J.

1. Considering the common issue involved in both these petitions, they are taken up for final hearing together and are being disposed of by the common judgment.

1.1 The petitioner of Special Criminal Application No.4496 of 2014 has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayers:

“[a] To strike down Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [hereinafter referred to as `PMLA'] [as inserted/substituted by Amendment Act 2005 [20 of 2005] dt. 21.5.2005, as the said provision does not bear any reasonable and rational nexus with variety of Scheduled offences mentioned in the Schedule under the Act which may even be non-cognizable, bailable and on much lighter pedestal, for being unreasonable and ultra vires, and consequently unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, and thus being violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and this Hon'ble Court may read down, lay down, expound, interpret and deliberate upon the scope and perspective of Section 45 of PMLA so as to harmonize the same in juxtaposition with various scheduled offences [under amended Part A of the Schedule],

[b] To read down, expound, deliberate and interpret the scope and perspective of Section 19 of PMLA in light of section 49(3) read with Rules notified by GSR 446[E] dated 1.7.2005, in consonance and harmony with settled constitutional mandate of Articles 14, 21 and 22 of Constitution of India as also in the context of various provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as amended from to time and the Guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal 1997(1) SCC 416,

[c] For issuance of an appropriate writ of quo warranto, calling upon Respondent No.3, who being an Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, appointed under Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, can under Section 54 of PMLA only assist any officer investigating under PMLA, to show cause as to how and under what authority has he exercised the power of arrest under Section 19 of PMLA, while effecting arrest of the Petitioner on 01.09.2014 in ECIR/01/SRT/2014, without producing till date, despite specific objection by the Petitioner –

[i] any authorization conferring upon him by way of any notification or order issued by the Central Government in terms of Section 19 and Section 49 of PMLA, 2002, read with Rules notified by GSR 446(E), dt.1.7.2005, authorizing him to be an “Arresting Officer” and to exercise power to arrest under section 19,

[ii] any notification issued by Central Government for his appointment a Assistant Director under section 49 of PMLA,

[iii] any records to show compliance of Rules notified by GSR 446(E) dated 1.7.2005, and

[v] any Criminal Proceedings against the Petitioner in the alleged Scheduled offence showing the Petitioner as an accused person; and

[d] For issuance of an appropriate writ of Habeas corpus, or order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing forthwith release of the Petitioner from custody, by setting aside the Impugned Arrest Order dated 1.9.2014 and the consequent remand proceedings, as the arrest of the Petitioner is manifestly illegal, without jurisdiction, null and void ab initio, for clear violation of

[i] The directives of the Hon’ble Apex Court in D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal, 1997(1) SCC 416 [more particularly those prescribed in sub-para (2), (9) and (10) of Para 35 thereof],

[ii] The provision of PMLA including amongst others of Section 19(1) of PMLA, which mandatorily prescribe the arrest to be made on the basis of such “material in possession”, on the basis of which there exists “reason to believe” that person is “guilty” of an offence under the PMLA; which shall be “recorded in writing”; and pursuant to arrest to inform him of the `Grounds' for