ORDER

1. The petitioners have filed the present petition challeing the provisional attachment order dated 25.2.2021 passed by Dy. Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi, against respondent No.3 and seeking release of public amenities such as road, garden, STP plant, club, electricity grid, etc. from the purview of the aforesaid attachment order.

2. According to the petitioners, they have purchased the plots in the colony developed by respondent No.3 in the name of “Empire Wild Flower” by investing their lifetime savings. Before purchasing the said plots, the petitioners have got verified all the documents pertaining to the ownership of respondent No.3, diversion order dated 14.7.08 (revised on 9.10.2011); development permission granted by Joint Director, Town & Country Planning dated 21.8.2014 (revised on 29.1.2018); registration certificate as colonizer; registration with RERA; and development permission granted by Indore Municipal Corporation on 30.4.2014. Therefore, there was no iota of doubt in the mind of the petitioners in respect of any illegality in the development of aforesaid colony by respondent No.3. According to the petitioners, when they approached respondent No.3 for execution of sale-deed, provisional attachment order dated 25.2.2021 came to their notice. Respondent No.3 also informed that respondent No.2 has restrained to execute any sale-deed, but vide order dated 21.1.2021 this Court in W.P. No.16452/2020 has granted permission to execute the sale-deed. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of provisional attachment qua the area available to the public use and amenities like road, garden, STP plant, club, electricity grid, etc. which comes to 72899 Sq.mtrs., hence the present petition before this Court.

3. Shri Ravindra Singh Chhabra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that respondent No.3 has executed the sale-deeds in favour of the petitioners in respect of the plots situated in the colony viz. Empire Wild Flower Colony, but in the provisional attachment proceedings, only the list of 98 plot-owners were disclosed, therefore, while passing the order of provisional attachment, the total area 18233 Sq.mtrs. has been excluded out of total area of the project i.e. 22,815 Sq.mtrs. But, there is no such pleading to this effect in the entire writ petition.

4. Shri Milind Phadke, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for respondent No.1, Union of India, submits that the Dy. Director has passed the impugned order in exercise of powers conferred under second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA Act” for short) all the movable and immovable properties belonging to respondent No.3 for a period of 180 days and the said order shall cease to have effect after expiry of 180 days or on the date of order of the adjudicating authority made u/s. 8(3) of the PMLA Act, whichever is earlier. He submits that the petitioners are having remedy to approach the adjudicating authority u/s. 8 of the PMLA Act because they are aggrieved by the impugned order of provisional attachment. Therefore, the aforesaid order is a temporary order and it is subject to the approval by the adjudicating authority u/s. 8 of the PMLA Act. Under proviso to sub-section (2) of section 8 also, if the property is claimed by a person, other than a person to whom the notice had been issued, such person shall also be given an opportunity of being heard to prove that the property is not involved in money-laundering. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material available on record.

5. Section 6 and 8 of the PMLA Act are reproduced below :

“5. Attachment of property involved in money-laundering. [(1)Where the Director or any other officer not below the rank of Deputy Director authorised by the Director for the purposes of this section, has reason to believe (the reason for such belief to be recorded in writing