IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that a writ petition under Article 226 cannot be entertained if an effective alternative remedy exists, emphasizing the need to exhaust statutory remedies before approaching the High Court.

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records relating to the order, dated 30.09.2022 passed by respondent No.4 in Original Complaint (OC).No.1738/2022, confirming the Provisional Attachment Order No.11 of 2022 in ECIR/08/HZO/2012 passed by respondent No.3 and consequently prayed this Court to set aside the said orders and for other appropriate reliefs.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a Non-Resident Indian, holding an Indian Passport bearing No.M9957325 and he is engaged in the business of manufacturing gold jewellery in Dubai in the name and style of M/s. Yahya Eid Goldsmithing Jewellery, L.L.C. It is the further case of the petitioner that initially an F.I.R. was registered vide No.RC-4(E)/2011, dated 19.10.2011 by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Bank Securities and Frauds Cell, Bangalore, against one Mr. Sanjay Agarwal, Managing Partner of the firm M/s. Ghanshyamdas Gems and Jewels and others for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 468 read with 471 of I.P.C, and after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been laid wherein he was not arrayed as accused. Subsequently, another FIR NO.RC-5(E)/2012 dated 17.04.2012 has been registered against the partners of the said firm for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B read with Sections 420 and 409 of IPC on the basis of a complaint lodged by the Punjab National Bank, Saifabad, Hyderabad, alleging criminal breach of trust resulting in a wrongful loss of Rs.30,09,63,890/-, wherein also after completion of investigation, the CBI laid charge sheet and the petitioner was not arrayed as accused. Basing on the said information, since the offences under Sections 420, 467 and 471 of IPC are schedule offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short “the PML Act”), an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) No. ECIR/08/HZO/2012, dated 05.10.2012 was recorded and investigation under the provisions of the Act has been initiated by the Enforcement Directorate, Hyderabad.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though his name is not included in the list of suspected accused in the said ECIR, after a lapse of more than ten years, the Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Hyderabad Zonal Office i.e., respondent No.3 herein, caused attachment of the immovable property belonging to the petitioner described at Sl.No.8 in Schedule-A of the provisional attachment order No.11/2022 dated 11.04.2022 in F.No.ECIR/08/HZO/2012 and further filed a complaint before the Adjudicating Authority i.e., respondent No.4, who in turn, allowed the same by confirming the provisional attachment order, vide order dated 30.09.2022, in Original Complaint (OC) No.1738 of 2022 in PAO.No.11 of 2022 in ECIR/08/HZO/2012.

4. This Court, vide order dated 12.06.2023, while issuing notice before admission, granted interim direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 not to proceed in any manner against the immovable properties of the petitioner and suspended the orders dated 30.09.2022 passed in O.C.No.1738 of 2022 in PAO No.11 of 2022 in ECIR/08/HZO/2012, on the ground that the Chairman of respondent No.3, who passed the impugned order, is not a judicial member.

5. Heard Sri M.A.Mujeeb, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.Rama Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the adjudicating authority consisting of a single member, who has no experience in the field of law cannot issue a show-cause notice under Section 8 (1) of the PML Act and cannot pass an order confirming the provisional attachment of properties under section 8 (3) of the PML Act as the same are quasi-judicial functions and only a member having experience in the field of law can perform quasi-judicial functions. Learned counsel further submits that respondent No.3, who passed the impugned order, is not a judicial member and as such, praye