The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for the petitioners to approach the appropriate authorities or the Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, regarding the attachment of Orchid Park.

JUDGMENT :

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) :

By means of this petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs:-

“I. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent no.1 to remove the attachment of Orchid Park.

II. Direct the respondent no.2 to proceed with and expedite the proceedings under Section 8 of RERA with respect to Orchid Park in a time-bound manner.

III. Award the cost of the present writ petition to the petitioners.

IV. Pass a suitable writ, order or direction in favour of petitioners and against the respondents which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The petitioners are buyer of flats under a project called “Orchid Park”. They booked the flats and paid the money, but they were not given the flats. The respondent no.3 i.e. Pushpanjali Realms and Infratech Ltd. (“the Developers”) is the developers of the flats. The petitioners filed a complaint before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (“the RERA”) against the developers. These proceedings are pending. The respondent no.7, the Bank proceeded against the developers under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (“the SARFAESI Act”) and issued the auction notice. The petitioners along with some other buyers moved an application for stay of the auction. The respondent no.2, the RERA passed an order in favour of the petitioners pursuant to which respondent no.7, the bank cancelled the auction. One of the buyers had filed an FIR against the developers. On the basis of the FIR lodged against the developers, the respondent no.1, the Enforcement Directorate took cognizance of the matter and initiated the investigation under the provision of the Prevention of the Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“the PMLA Act”). On 29.03.2022, a provisional attachment order was passed.

4. According to the petitioners, the attachment of Orchid Park by the Enforcement Directorate has caused even greater prejudice to the allottees as it is the effectively the only assets available to the allottees for recovery of their hard earned money. It appears that the petitioners made a representation to respondent no.1, the Enforcement Directorate, which according to the petitioners was not considered by the respondent no.1.

5. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent no.1, the Enforcement Directorate has incorrectly attached the project site of the Orchid Park as the project site was not acquired by “the proceeds of crime”, as contemplated under Section 5 of the PMLA Act.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the proceedings under Section 8 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“the RERA Act”) are still pending before the RERA, which have yet not been concluded. During this proceeding, respondent no.1, Enforcement Directorate has proceeded under the provisions of PMLA Act and provisionally attached the property, which has been confirmed. It is stated that the respondent no.7, the Bank has already challenged the attachment confirmation order under Section 26 of the PMLA Act before the Appellate Authority. It is argued that the petitioners may not approach the Authority. The respondent no.2 the RERA is not proceeding in the matter because the property has already been attached under the provision of PMLA Act. Therefore, it is argued that the intervention of the Court is required.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1, the Enforcement Directorate would submit that the complaint under the provision of the PMLA Act is to be filed against the developers. At this stage, the petitioners may very well approach the Special Court challenging the attachment order. He would also submit that the order of confirming the provisional attachment has already been challenged by the respondent no.7, the Bank before the Appellate Authority under Sec