The main legal point established is the importance of following the procedures for adjudication and the availability of alternative remedies under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Kalyan Roy, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Sidhartha Roy, the learned vice counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, the learned counsel assisted by Mr. Shivam Utkarsh Sahay, the learned vice counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 (Enforcement Directorate) and Mr. Rahul Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 6 to 8.

2. By order dated 29.11.2021 the notices were issued upon the respondent nos. 5 to 9 (now, respondent nos. 4 to 8). The respondent no. 5 has been served through her son. The respondent no. 6 has been served personally. The petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit stating therein that the petitioner made personal service of notice upon the respondent nos. 5 and 6 (now, respondent nos. 4 and 5) and both are residing together. Thereafter, this matter was adjourned to 28.04.2022 and 09.05.2022, however, the respondent nos. 5 and 6 (now, 4 and 5) have chosen not to appear in the Court. Mr. Rahul Kumar, the learned counsel has appeared for respondent nos. 6 to 8.

3. This petition has been filed for quashing the eviction notice dated 08.06.2021 issued by the respondent no. 5 whereby the petitioner has been directed to vacate the premises being holding no. 2154/A/228, MIG House No. M-28 situated at Mauza Bariatu Booty Road, Ranchi within 10 days of receipt of the notice.

4. Mr. Kalyan Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that by virtue of an agreement this petitioner has come into possession of the property in question from the year 1991 itself and the petitioner has purchased the property in question by a sale deed dated 04.8.1993 in the name of his wife. He submits that due to family dispute the wife of this petitioner has deserted and thereafter she sold the property in question to one Pawan Kumar Singh by a sale deed dated 08.9.2005. He submits that said Pawan Kumar Singh is an accused in a case of money laundering and was facing the complaint with regard to ECIR/02/PAT/2012. He further submits that pursuant to that proceeding, the petitioner has been directed to vacate the premises in question. He submits that this notice has been issued without hearing the petitioner. He further contends that the provisional attachment order was passed in view of section 6 on 05.02.2021 in Original Complaint No. 1344/2020 and in that complaint, by order dated 05.02.2021 provisional order of attachment was passed and in provisional attachment order also the petitioner was not heard. He further submits that for the property in question Title Suit being Title Suit No. 212/2005 has been filed by this petitioner which is still pending. He further submits that in the suit, the respondents are not appearing. He further advanced his argument by way of referring section 8 of the Prevention of Money- Laundering Act, 2002 [hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act’] and submits that how the cases arising under the said statute are required to be adjudicated is prescribed therein. He submits that this section clearly provides that any person against whom any order is being passed is required to be heard and ignoring this provision, the order has been passed against the petitioner. He further draws the attention of the Court to Rule-5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering (Taking Possession of Attached or Frozen Properties Confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority), Rules, 2013 [hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Rules’] and submits that the manner of taking possession of the immovable property is made in the Rule-5. He submits that how the notice is required to be served is prescribed under the Rule 6 of the said Rules and also the Form-I and II is prescribed therein which is the mode of notice. He submits that all these statutory provisions have not been followed and the petitioner has already been evicted. He further submits that this matter was taken up on 28.06.2021, howeve