Accused Cannot Directly Approach High Court Against Eviction U/S 8(4) PMLA When Appeal Pending Before Tribunal: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the accused cannot directly approach the High Court challenging eviction under Section 8 (4) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) when the appeal in pending before the Tribunal.

The provision states that where the provisional order of attachment made is confirmed, the possession of such property may be taken in such manner as may be prescribed.

Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma said, "the challenge in the instant proceedings vis-à-vis the impugned eviction notice is premature besides at this stage is an mis-constituted challenge. Initially, for the reasons that the vigor of the arguments (supra), as become now raised, rather can be tested on an apposite application becoming filed by the present petitioner before the Appellate Tribunal, PMLA, New Delhi, seized with an appeal directed against the confirmation of the provisional attachment order."

It said petitioner should have filed an application in the subjudice appeal.

These observations were made while hearing the plea filed by the Revenue Officer under the Punjab Government, seeking quashing of notice of eviction issued under Section 8 (4) of the PMLA.

An FIR was lodged against him in corruption case against him, under Sections 409, 420, 465, 466, 467, 471, 120 B IPC and under Sections 7, 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Thereafter, while treating the FIR, as a scheduled offence, an ECIR was registered by Enforcement Directorate (ED) for an offence punishable under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the PMLA.

During investigation of the said ECIR, the provisional attachment order was passed by the ED under Section 5 (1) of the PMLA, thereby attaching the hereinafter extracted immovable properties of the petitioner, while construing the same to be "equivalent value of proceeds of crime."

In terms of Section 8 (3) of the PMLA, the Adjudicating Authority, PMLA, New Delhi vide Confirmation Order, thus confirmed the Provisional Attachment Order.

The petitioner in terms of Section 26 of the PMLA filed appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, PMLA, New Delhi against the Confirmation Order, as passed by Adjudicating Authority, PMLA in 2023. The Appeal is pending for August awaiting ED's Reply to the Appeal.

The senior counsel for the petitioner argued that the eviction notice, is illegal and violative of the settled law, as held by the Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Vs. Union of India [(2002) SCC Online SC 929].

In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case, it was held that, the eviction "provision ought to be invoked only in exceptional situation keeping in mind the peculiar facts of the case. In that, merely because the provisional attachment order passed under Section 5(1) is confirmed, it does not follow that the property stands confiscated; and until an order of confiscation is formally passed, there is no reason to hasten the process of taking possession of such property."

The Eviction Notice is absolutely non-speaking, cryptic, mechanical and does not spell out any reason whatsoever for invoking the extra ordinary powers under Section 8(4) of PMLA, he added.

On the other hand, senior counsel for ED submitted that the present case clearly establishes that Varinder Pal Singh Dhoot, was directly involved in the illicit sale of wrongly allotted shares of Shamlat land of village Seonk.

The petitioner is directly involved in concealment, possession, acquisition of proceeds of crime and claiming the same to be untainted property, he is properly enjoying proceeds of crime by way of using attached properties, added the senior counsel.

After hearing the submissions the Court noted that the matter is subjudice before the Appellate Tribunal under PMLA.

"Therefore, the demands of justice, require that liberty be reserved to the present petitioner to file an apposite application, in the subjudice appeal, wherebys he may throw a challenge on all permissible premises to the impugned eviction notice," the Court added.

However "securing the ends of justice" the Court said, it is "appropriate to make a direction upon the Appellate Tribunal, PMLA, New Delhi, to within a period of two months lawfully decide the subjudice appeal as directed against the confirmation of the provisional attachment order."

In the light of the above, the plea was dismissed.

Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Harshit Saini, Advocate, Mr. Rahil Mahajan, Advocate and

Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Promila Nain, Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents.

Title: VARINDER PAL SINGH DHOOT V. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

2024 LiveLaw (PH) 169

Click here to read/download the order