IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RA-CW No. 41of 2026 in CWP No. 8247-2025 Reserved on : 05.02.2026 Pronounced on : 05.03.2026 Uploaded on : 05.03.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or the full Judgment is pronounced: Full Judgment PREM DAHIYA ... PETITIONER VS.

UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ... RESPONDENTS CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present:- Mr. R.K. Doon, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner.

Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Addl. Solicitor General of India (arguing counsel) with Ms. Meghna Malik, Sr. Panel Counsel for respondent No.1 *****

SANJIV BERRY, J.

CM-1224-2026 in RA No. 41-2026 In view of reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 24 days in filing of the review application (RA-41-2026) is condoned.

Accordingly, CM-1224-2026 is allowed.

RA-41-2026 in CWP-8247-2025

1. The instant application under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 CPC has been preferred by the applicant-petitioner seeking review of the order dated

04.12.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 8247-2025.

2. It is inter alia contended by learned counsel for the applicant- petitioner that the petitioner had filed the writ of Certiorari for setting aside the order dated 03.03.2025 (Annexure P-7) whereby the bank account of the applicant-petitioner was wrongly and arbitrarily freezed in connection with search and seizure/freezing under Section 17 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PMLA, 2002’). He submits that order dated 03.03.2025 (Annexure P-7) contained wrong and contrary facts and figures and was never confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority on 28.07.2025. He as such submits that order dated 04.12.2025 passed by this Court, requires to be reviewed.

3. Learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondent/ED submits that there is no merit in the application moved by the applicant-petitioner and no ground for review of the order dated 04.12.2025 is made out. The Adjudicating Authority has already confirmed the freezing of the assets/accounts vide its order dated 28.07.2025 wherein the petitioner was a party to the proceedings. He contends that the remedy available to the petitioner is by way of appeal under Section 26 of the PMLA, 2002 as has been mentioned in the order dated

04.12.2025, hence he prayed for dismissal of the review application.

4. After considering the rival contentions and perusing the record, it is observed that CWP-8247-2025 preferred by the petitioner was disposed of vide order dated 04.12.2025, which reads as under:-

“1. Learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the respondent/ED informs that the provisional attachment order dated 03.03.2025 (Annexure P-7) has since been affirmed by the Adjudicating Authority on 28.07.2025, which can very well assailed before the Appellate Tribunal u/s 25 read with Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

2. The petitioner shall be at liberty to avail the aforesaid remedy, in accordance with law.

3. With the aforesaid liberty, petition stands disposed of without commenting upon the merits of the case.”

5. The applicant-petitioner has preferred the instant application seeking review of the aforesaid order proclaiming that the provisional attachment order dated 03.03.2025 was never confirmed by order dated 28.07.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, in light of the fact that the name of the account holders mentioned therein was later rectified by the department vide corrigendum dated 28.03.2025.

5.1 However, perusing the record, especially the order dated 28.07.2025 (Annexure R-2) coupled with the short affidavit filed on behalf of respondents dated 19.08.2025, it is observed that this final order dated 28.07.2025 was passed in OA No.96/DEL/2025 PMLA and there is specific recital in the short affidavit contained in Para 5 (i) to the fact that the Panchnama dated 03.03.2025, freezing order dated 03.03.2025, as well as corrigendum dated 28.03.2025 are part of the OA No.96/