Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain Sameer Wankhede’s Plea Seeking Protection From Search and Seizure In Disproportionate Assets Case

The Delhi High Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea moved by former Mumbai zonal director of Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) Sameer Wankhede seeking protection in a case accusing him of owning disproportionate assets.

Wankhede had sought a direction that he must be given time to submit relevant documentary evidence before any action in terms of search or seizure is initiated against him.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani refused to entertain the plea after opining that Wankhede had failed to produce relevant material on record so as to enable the court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 and also in view of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

Wankhede’s counsel submitted before the court that the NCB “purely without jurisdiction”, after his repatriation from the department, prepared a report alleging that he has disproportionate assets. The counsel however added that the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has already protected Wankhede in the matter.

“While I have no issues with facing the enquiry, all the properties in question are prior to my joining government service. My only prayer is that I should not be brought to the scrutiny of search or seizure and must be given time to submit documentary evidence,” the counsel said.

However, questioning the counsel on the point of territorial jurisdiction, Justice Bhambhani asked: “CAT etc is a separate matter. Essentially you were posted in Mumbai. Now therefore your department under which you were serving was in Mumbai, why are you before [Delhi]?”

The counsel responded that the court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the plea as the headquarters of NCB and CBI including the Ministries of Home and Finance is situated in the national capital.

Pressing the relief sought in the plea, the counsel further said that Wankhede is a good and upright officer and a law abiding citizen. 

Justice Bhambhani said: “All these are the badges of honour you’re giving yourself…we don’t know.”  

The court further added that no relevant material was produced before it to exercise jurisdiction in the matter.

It said: “You bring me some material, show me I’ve territorial jurisdiction. I’ll then see what is to be done. Territorial jurisdiction will be founded on the material you’re trying to impugn.”

As the counsel raised an apprehension of search and adverse action by officials, the court responded: “You know how government officials are supposed to act….now the same thing has come to bite you so you’re saying they are acting like this.”

“If everybody does their job honestly thinking that we would be at the receiving end, we would all be happy as a society ... we have to preserve the systems, [we have to] preserve the institutions because God forbid, we may be at the receiving end. Right now there is nothing before me on which I can act.”

“You’re venting before me. If you need more time to vent, then be my guest. There is no material on which I can act. Withdraw this petition and have some material … come back later to this court or the Bombay High Court.”

The court noted that the communication of the NCB that Wankhede sought to challenge was not on record and the same was not available with his counsel.

“Absent such communication, the petition is bereft of the very foundation on which it is sought to be premised. Furthermore, absent such communication, the very territorial jurisdiction of this court to entertain the petition is also in doubt,” the court said.

As Wankhede’s counsel sought leave to withdraw the petition, the court allowed the same with the liberty to adopt appropriate remedies before the court of competent jurisdiction, as may be available, in accordance with law.

“The petition is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty,” the court said, clarifying that it had not expressed any opinion on merits of the case.

Title: Sameer Wankhede v. UOI & Ors. 

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 8