2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 56028
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
MR SHANKER MAHADEVAN IYER – Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY DIRECTOR – Respondent
WP 34513/2024
##PAGE1##
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 34513 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN MR. SHANKER MAHADEVAN IYER S/O LATE SHANKER IYER AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT 1/D 15-991/31, LAKSHMI SHANKER GREEN FIELD LAYOUT, CHILLMBI MANGALORE, ASHOK NAGAR (MR), DAKSHINA KANNADA KARNATAKA-575006.
...PETITIONER (BY SRI: D.R. RAVISHANKAR., SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. ABHISHEK MARLA M J., ADVOCATE)
AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT MANGALURU SUBZONAL OFFICE 2ND FLOOR, 4-212/16 “VISTAAR”
COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, AIRPORT ROAD YEYYADI, KONCHADY MANGALURU-575008 …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. ANUPARNA BORDOLOI., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT, DATED 29.10.2024 PASSED IN ECIR/MGSZO/04/2022 (ANNEXURE-A) IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES AND ETC.
##PAGE2##THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 29.07.2026, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CAV ORDER
1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and quash the impugned order passed by Respondent, dated 29.10.2024 passed in ECIR/MGSZO/04/2022 (Annexure-A) in respect of the schedule properties.
ii) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the show cause notice dated 30.11.2024 issued under Section 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, ‘PMLA, 2002’) and in that background the Petitioner has sought for the aforesaid reliefs.
3. The Petitioner claims that he is a proprietor of M/s.
S.S.Maritime which was in the business of stevedoring and related activities since the year
##PAGE3##1990. The Petitioner had, on 09.02.2011, paid a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to one M/s. Hanuman Minerals for supply of high-grade iron ore. In the month of January 2012, M/s. Hanuman Minerals had approached the Petitioner with assurance to return the entire sum of Rs.25,00,000/- but had also suggested that M/s.S.S.Maritime take up stevedoring in respect of 40000 metric tons (MT) of iron ore at Alcon and Maina Jetties situated in Goa. M/s.Hanuman Minerals thereafter is alleged to have paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- on 30.01.2012, a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- on 02.02.2012 as a partial repayment of a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-. There being certain contractual dispute between M/s.Hanuman Minerals and M/s.Manipal Global Services Pvt. Ltd (for short, ‘M/s.Manipal Global’) as regards the agreement dated 18.01.2012, M/s.Manipal Global had filed a private complaint in PCR No.23/2017 before the Additional Civil Judge and ACJM, Udupi, which was referred to the Manipal Police Station for investigation. In furtherance of which, Crime No.90/2017 was registered on 02.06.2017 against the Petitioner and 10 others for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 417, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 34 of the IPC, wherein the Petitioner was arraigned as accused no.11. On completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed wherein the Petitioner has been arraigned as accused no.3.
##PAGE4##4. The aforesaid offences being scheduled offences under paragraph No.1 of Part-A of the Schedule of the PMLA 2002, the Respondent has recorded an ECIR bearing No.ECIR/MGSZO/04/2022 on 28.03.2022. Thereafter, on 29.10.2024 vide Order No. 1/24 the properties belonging to the Petitioner as per the schedule to the petition were attached and, in pursuance thereof, a show cause notice dated 30.11.2024 has been issued, which is under challenge.
5. Sri.D.R.Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submits that:
5.1. The Respondent has mechanically at