ORDER :

(Ujjal Bhuyan, J.)

Heard Mr. T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing E.Venkata Siddhartha, learned counsel for the petitioners; and Mr. V.Ram Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Enforcement Directorate representing the respondents.

2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:

i) to set aside and quash the order dated 25.07.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in O.A.No.590 of 2021 and consequently to direct defreezing of the bank accounts of the petitioners besides return of documents/records;

ii) to declare Section 6 (5)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘PMLA’) as unconstitutional or alternatively to read down the said provision by holding that the Bench of the Adjudicating Authority may be constituted by the Chairperson with two or more Members including one Judicial Member; and

iii) to declare Section 6 (7) of PMLA as unconstitutional or in the alternatively to read down the said provision to mean that if at any stage of the hearing of any case or matter it appears to the Chairperson or a Member that the case or matter is of such a nature that it ought to be heard by a Bench consisting of more than two Members, the case or matter may be transferred by the Chairperson or, as the case may be, referred to him for transfer to such Bench as the Chairperson may deem fit.

3. However, at the time of hearing, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners confined his arguments to prayer No. (i) above, that too, on two grounds which we will advert to in the course of the judgment.

4. At the outset, it would be apposite to briefly mention the facts as pleaded in the writ affidavit by the petitioners.

5. Officials of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Hyderabad on 03.05.2019 conducted a search at the premises of M/s. Sri Krishna Exim LLP, Hyderabad (petitioner No.2) and M/s. Sri Krishna Jewellers Private Limited (petitioner No.3). In the course of the search, DRI officials seized certain gold bars, currency, documents etc.

5.1. Pursuant to the search and seizure action by DRI, a show cause notice dated 26.06.2020 was issued by the Additional Director General of DRI under Section 124 of the CUSTOMS ACT , 1962 (briefly, ‘the CUSTOMS ACT ’ hereinafter) calling upon petitioner No.2 to show cause as to why the goods and currency seized should not be confiscated and as to why penalty should not be imposed under Sections 112(a)(b) and 117 of the CUSTOMS ACT read with the provisions of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, and the Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006. Similar show cause notice under Section 124 of the CUSTOMS ACT was issued on 27.06.2020 by the Additional Director General of DRI to petitioner No.3 to show cause as to why the 195 gold bars of 100 grams each weighing 19500 grams and valued at Rs.6,33,75,000.00 seized under panchanama dated 3/4.05.2019 should not be confiscated under Section 111(d) and (o) of the CUSTOMS ACT and besides imposition of penalty under Sections 112(a) and (b) and 117 of the CUSTOMS ACT .

5.2. According to the petitioners, the show cause notices dated 26.06.2020 and 27.06.2020 were transferred to the call book on 16.04.2021 by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad, in terms of Section 28 (9-A)(c) of the CUSTOMS ACT . It is further stated the said show caus