G.S. Sandhawalia, J. - In the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to de-freeze the bank account of the petitioner which has allegedly been done under the provisions of The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short "PMLA'). It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner in the writ petition has referred to and claimed reliefs only with regard to a saving account bearing No. 1956915673 maintained with the Central Bank of India, Sector 18-C, Chandigarh-respondent no. 3. It has accordingly been pleaded that the respondent namely the Directorate of Enforcement-respondent no. 2 (known as the Directorate) has disallowed the withdrawals.

2. As we mentioned above, in the writ petition, reliefs were sought of de-freezing only in respect of the petitioner's saving account No. 1956915673. The respondents have de-frozen this account. This petitioner's grievance in this Writ Petition, therefore, does not survive. The Writ Petition can be disposed of on this ground alone.

3. Mr. Bansal, however, made an oral application for reliefs in addition to those sought in the writ petition. He sought the de-freezing of various other accounts and fixed deposit receipts of the petitioner. There are, however, no prayers in respect of the reliefs sought across the bar viz. de-freezing of the fixed deposits and other accounts of the petitioner. More important there are no pleadings in support of the oral application. Even the evidence in respect thereof was only tendered across the bar. Further, still there was not even an application for amending the writ petition. We do not refuse to entertain the oral application for reliefs other than those that form the subject matter of the petition on a mere technicality. The nature of the reliefs sought would require detailed investigation of facts many of which are disputed. To allow such an oral application would be undesirable especially in view of the nature of this case. It would also be unfair to the respondents. They must have an opportunity of dealing with the application and the documents on affidavit.

4. As Mr. Bansal pressed the application strongly, we will refer to the oral application and the facts only to substantiate the above and without expressing a final opinion on the merits in respect thereof.

5. Mr. Bansal suggested that the reliefs can be considered on the basis of the pleadings in the Writ Petition as they are.

6. The first question that arises, therefore, is whether any challenge has been raised in the writ petition with respect to the freezing of the petitioner's account and the FDRs apart from the petitioner's saving account No.1956915673. The question must be answered in the negative. The only prayer in the petition reads as under:

"i) issue Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to de-freeze the bank account of the Petitioner;"

Firstly, the FDRs are not even mentioned in the prayer. The bank account is referred to in the singular, not in the plural. The paragraph-2 of the petition reads as under:-

"2. That the Petitioner is having regular income from rent and tailoring. The Petitioner is maintaining a saving account bearing number 1956915673 with the Central Bank of India, Chandigarh. The Petitioner is regularly making the transactions from the said account. The Respondent No.3, on the basis of a letter issued by Directorate of Enforcement i.e. Respondent No.2 has disallowed withdrawls (sic) to the Petitioner. Therefore, the Petitioner is filing present Civil Writ Petition seeking directions to the Respondents to allow withdrawls (sic) and defreeze the bank account of the Petitioner."

A plain reading of paragraph-2 makes it clear that the grievance is only in respect of the said saving account No.1956915673. The expression "said account", obviously, refers to that account and to no o