IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act provides a self-contained legal framework, requiring exhaustion of statutory remedies before seeking relief through writ petitions.

JUDGMENT :

Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.

These appeals have been preferred challenging the common judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (Crl.) Nos. 595 of 2024, 601 of 2024, 731 of 2024, and 721 of 2024, whereby the said Writ Petitions were dismissed as non-maintainable on the ground that the petitioners had failed to exhaust the statutory remedies available under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). However, liberty was reserved to the appellants/petitioners to challenge the impugned orders before the appropriate statutory authorities, and such authorities were directed to consider the objections and claims raised by the petitioners, untrammelled by the observations made in the impugned judgment. Being aggrieved these appeals have been preferred.

2. The case of the appellants as projected in the Writ Petition are as under:

2.1. The Union Territory of Lakshadweep Administration (UTLA), headed by its Administrator, is entrusted with the procurement and construction of water vessels for the use of the UTLA. Landing barges are essential for the transportation of passengers and cargo between the Lakshadweep Islands and the mainland.

2.2. In 2006, the Ministry of Shipping, Government of India, accorded sanction to the UTLA for the acquisition of two landing barges through an open tender process. Pursuant thereto, the Shipping Corporation of India floated Tender No. T&S/NB/UTLA/2000PAS/LB/2006 dated 04.04.2006, on behalf of UTLA, inviting bids from experienced shipyards for the construction of six 200-PAX Passenger Landing Barges.

2.3. Four firms submitted bids in response. One of the firms shortlisted was Vipul Shipyard Pvt. Ltd. (‘VSPL’ for the sake of brevity), a family-owned Private Limited Company, having its shipyard at Vasco Da Gama.

2.4. The petitioner in W.P.(Crl.) No. 721 of 24 is VSPL, the petitioner in W.P.(Crl) No. 601 of 2024 is Sri. Dinesh Parshuram Amin, who was a non-participating Director, and the petitioner in W.P.(Crl.) No. 595 of 2024 is Sri. Mohan Rao, who was the non-participating CEO of VSPL. After technical scrutiny, two were shortlisted, and M/s. VSPL was identified as L1. However, the construction agreement with M/s. VSPL, Surat, was not executed until 20.10.2007.

2.5. VSPL has a sister concern by name ‘Vipul Shipping Engineering Works’ (‘VSEW’ for the sake of brevity), a partnership concern, which is the petitioner in W.P.(Crl) No. 731 of 24 and the 2nd petitioner in the above Writ Petition is Kusumben Vishnubhai Amin, a partner of the above concern.

2.6. In July 2007, M/s. VSPL informed the Shipping Corporation of India that their Surat yard was being taken over by ABG Shipyard Pvt. Ltd., but assured that the contract could be fulfilled using their Goa yard. The acquisition process was completed in August 2007, and the VSPL Surat yard was officially taken over by ABG Shipyard. Construction of the vessels commenced, and payments were released in instalments.

2.7. In 2010, a team of UTLA officials inspected the vessels under construction at VSPL, Goa, and found the dimensions to be inconsistent with the requirement of UTLA.

2.8. Based on a letter received from Sri. Vadodaria Karanjeet, Director of the Lakshadweep Administration, the CBI, ACB, Cochin, registered Preliminary Enquiry No.2/2014 dated 17.10.2014. The letter alleged criminal negligence, malpractices, and corruption involving officials of the Lakshadweep Administration, the Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. (SCIL), and M/s. VSPL, in relation to the construction of the two landing barges.