Court held that actions of the Enforcement Directorate were not legally sustainable post-appellate tribunal's decision.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners had challenged Exts.P4 to P7 orders issued under Section 17 (1A) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act , 2002 (for short 'PML Act') freezing the bank accounts mentioned in those orders. The said orders related to the bank accounts maintained by the petitioners with respondents 5 to 8.

2. Initially, a learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated 24.02.2025 declined to stay the impugned orders. The petitioners challenged the aforesaid order refusing to grant the stay, in W.A.No.556 of 2025. By judgment dated 24.03.2025, the Division Bench of this Court relegated the petitioners to the learned Single Judge, primarily to consider the nature of jurisdiction under which the writ petition ought to have been preferred.

3. In the meantime, the competent authority had approached the Adjudicating Authority under Section 8 of the PML Act and the petitioners participated in the said proceedings. However, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the order freezing the bank accounts of the petitioners. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred before the PML Appellate Tribunal. By Ext.R6(a) order dated 27.10.2025, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed the Enforcement Directorate to return the seized properties and records of the petitioners and also directed defreezing of the bank accounts of the petitioners within six weeks from the said date. Consequently, the 2^nd respondent issued an order dated 05.12.2025 revoking the freezing of the bank accounts maintained by the petitioners with respondents 5 to 8.

4. By virtue of Exts.R6(a) and R6(b), the cause that was being agitated in this writ petition, has become infructuous. Normally, this Court would have dismissed this writ petition stating it to be infructuous. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that despite Exts.R6(a) and R6(b), the 6^th respondent has refused to defreeze the bank account of the petitioners stating that the interim order of this Court dated 24.02.2025 has not been vacated. The learned counsel further pointed out that despite attempts to impress upon the 6^th respondent, they have refused to pay any heed to those requests in the absence of any interim orders by this Court.

5. Having considered the above submission, it is to be noted that if the 6^th respondent has refused to revoke Ext.P5 order which had frozen the bank accounts maintained by the petitioners with the said respondent, the same can only be attributed to the said Bank’s inability to comprehend Ext.R6(a) as well as Ext.R6(b), apart from non-application of mind to the scope of the order dated 24.02.2025. Needless to mention, in view of Exts.R6(a) and R6(b), there could not have been any continuance of freezing of the bank accounts maintained by the petitioners with any of the respondents 5 to

8.

6. Be that as it may, since the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the relief sought for in this writ petition has become infructuous, in view of the order of the Appellate Tribunal, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.

Sd/-