The court upheld the authority of the Directorate of Enforcement to conduct searches under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act without prior state consent, reinforcing that the right to privacy is subject to reasonable restrictions for investigative purposes.

COMMON ORDER

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Three writ petitions have been filed. The writ petition in W.P.No.10348 of 2025 has been filed by the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC), seeking the issuance of writ of mandamus, to direct the respondent, their men, employees, subordinates, agents or any other persons claiming or acting through or under them not to harass the officials/employees of the petitioner under the guise of investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [hereinafter referred to as 'PMLA'].

2. The second writ petition in W.P.No.10352 of 2025 filed by TASMAC seeking a writ of declaration, in so far as it relates to the search and seizure proceedings conducted under Section 17 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 from 06.03.2025 to 08.03.2025, were without jurisdiction, and therefore, illegal and arbitrary.

3. The third writ petition in W.P.No.10355 of 2025 has been filed by the State of Tamil Nadu, seeking a writ of declaration that the power of the respondents so far as it relates investigation, inquiry etc., of an offence of money laundering in relation to a predicate offence arising out of and within the territorial limits of the State without the consent of the concerned State, is violative of basic structure of federalism and separation of powers. Therefore, such inquiry, investigation, etc., by the respondent can be carried out only at the request of the State Agencies/State Government or by or under the directions of the Hon'ble Constitutional Courts.

4. The said Original prayer sought to be amended in W.M.P.No.12695 of 2025 as follows: (i) To Read down and/or read into the expression “person” occurring in Section 2 (1)(s) of the PML Act and hold that the same envisages a particular class and category to be included in its ambit, sweep and scope which certainly does not extend to any Authority, Regulator or Officer of Central or State Governance etc., (ii) To Hold and declare that the only obligation on the officers of any State Government under the Act is to assist the authorities in the enforcement thereof, (iii) To direct the respondent Enforcement Directorate to call upon only those officers of the State who have been authorised and notified under Section 54 (1)(j) of PML Act thereof by the Central Government to assist them for enforcement of the provisions thereof, (iv) To Direct the respondents to request such assistance from the State Government or its Officers only in terms of Section 54 and not under Section 17 or 50 etc., (v) To Direct the respondents not to enter into and exercise any power of search and seizure in terms of Section 17 of the PML Act at any premises of the Government of the State of Tamil Nadu be it any office of any Corporation under it as well, (vi) To hold and declare the action of the respondents in entering into the premises of the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC) to be illegal, unconstitutional and invalid and accordingly, set aside the proceedings carried out in pursuance thereto.

5. The brief facts in these writ petitions are that the TASMAC is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, on 23.05.1983. It is wholly owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu, with its Registered Office in Chennai. TASMAC has been vested with the exclusive privilege of wholesale supply of Indian Made Foreign Liquor ('IMFL') for the entire State of Tamil Nadu, as per Section 17 (C)(1-A)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 (Tamil Nadu Act X of 1937). It has taken over the wholesale distribution of IMFL from the Private Sector in the