ORDER :

The present matters viz., W.P. No.34238 of 2022, W.P. No.34627 of 2022, I.A. No.1 of 2022 in 41133 of 2022 and I.A. No.1 of 2022 in W.P. No. 44343 of 2022 involve adjudication of common questions of law. Therefore, the same are being decided vide the following common order.

2. In W.P. No. 34238 of 2022, Mr. Dinesh Tiwari learned counsel for the Petitioner was heard along with Mr. V. Ramakrishna Reddy learned standing counsel for the Respondents. In W.P. No. 34627 of 2022, Mr. Vedula Srinivas representing Mrs. Vedula Chitralekha was heard for the Petitioners and Mr. V. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned standing counsel was heard for the Respondents. In I.A. No. 1 of 2022 in 41133 of 2022 and I.A. No. 1 of 2022 in W.P. No. 44343 of 2022, Mr. T. Niranjan Reddy learned senior counsel representing Mr. Avinash Desai was heard for the Petitioners and Mr. T. Surya Karan Reddy learned Additional Solicitor General of India for Southern Zone was heard for the Respondents therein.

3. Factual Background in W.P. No. 34238 of 2022:

i) An inquiry was initiated by the Department of Revenue Intelligence, Hyderabad against the Petitioner herein for alleged illegal manufacturing and sale of DPP and HCL. In furtherance of the said inquiry, the Petitioner was arraigned as an accused in relation to offences committed under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Subsequently, Directorate of Enforcement (hereinafter referred as ‘ED’) initiated investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as ‘PMLA’) vide ECIR/03/HYD/2007.

ii) A provisional attachment order bearing PAO No. 04/2022 dated 03.02.2022 under Section 5(1) of the PMLA was passed by Respondent No. 2 (ED) against the Petitioner herein. Subsequently, an original complaint bearing O.C. No. 1633 of 2022 was filed on 28.02.2022 before the Adjudicating Authority mentioning the alleged offences committed by the Petitioner and details of the properties attached.

iii) Pursuant to the original complaint, the Adjudicating Authority after recording its reasons issued a show cause notice dated 17.03.2022 to the Petitioner under Section 8(1) of the PMLA to indicate the source of income out of which the provisionally attached properties were procured and show cause why such properties should not be declared as proceeds of crime.

iv) The Petitioner replied to the show cause notice on 23.03.2022 stating that all the documents relied upon to pass PAO No. 04/2022 were not supplied. However, a hearing was conducted by the Adjudicating Authority on 04.08.2022 and an order dated 22.08.2022 was passed confirming the provisional attachment order PAO No. 04/2022.

v) It is relevant to note that after the completion of hearing by the Adjudicating Authority on 04.08.2022, the Petitioner had filed W.P. No. 33539 of 2022 before this Court on 23.08.2022 challenging the show cause notice dated 17.03.2022. However, the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 30.08.2022 in view of the order dated 22.08.2022 confirming the provisional attachment.

vi) The Petitioner challenges the order dated 22.08.2022 confirming the provisional attachment order PAO No. 04/2022 on the ground that the same was passed without jurisdiction and in breach of Section 6 of the PMLA. The Petitioner also contends that the order dated 22.08.2022 confirming the provisional attachment was passed beyond the prescribed period of 180 days which is in breach of Section 5 of the PMLA.

4. Factual Background in W.P. No. 41133 of 2022:

i) Scheduled offences were registered by the ED against various entities of the Karvy group of companies and its directors vide Cr. No 78 of 2021 dated 22.04.2021 and Cr. No. 86 of 2021 dated 01.05.2021 on the complaints lodged by HDFC Bank. Based on the information in the said complaints, investigation was initiated under the PMLA on File No. ECIR/HYZO/14/2021 dated