Delhi High Court
Directorate Of Enforcement vs Ssr Infra & Anr. on 1 June, 2012
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 1st June, 2012
+ LPA No.453/2012
% DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT ....Appellant
Through: Mr. Rajshekar Rao, Mr. Bipul Kumar
& Mr. Vikash Pathak, Advs.
Versus
SSR INFRA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sachin Datta, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
JUDGMENT
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. This Intra-Court appeal impugns the order dated 20th March, 2012 of
the learned Single Judge allowing W.P.(C) No. 804/2012 preferred by the
respondent no.1 and imposing costs of Rs.50,000/- on the appellant herein.
The said writ petition was preferred seeking direction to the appellant to
decide the representation made by the respondent no.1 to the appellant.
During the pendency of the said writ petition, the learned Single Judge,
finding a prima facie case to have been made out by the respondent
no.1/writ petitioner, directed the appellant to examine the said
representation. The appellant in compliance of the said direction passed
order dated 17th February, 2012 on the said representation. The learned
Single Judge has in the impugned judgment held that the appellant had in
the order dated 17th February, 2012 not dealt with the grievance and
accordingly proceeded to consider the same on merits and decided in favour
of the respondent no.1. The costs as aforesaid have been imposed on the
appellant for the reason of having not dealt with the
grievance/representation appropriately.
2. Before we discuss the merits of the decision, we may take notice of
the preliminary argument of the counsel for the appellant (and which
argument was raised before the learned Single Judge also) that the relief
claimed by the respondent no.1 in the writ petition being only for mandamus
for consideration of his representation, stood granted by the direction given
by the learned Single Judge on 8th February, 2012 therefor and the writ
petition ought to have been disposed of and the learned Single Judge ought
not to have gone into the merits of the matter. The learned Single Judge in
this regard has held that since the appellant inspite of direction had failed to
deal with the grievance or to adjudicate the same and had merely "disposed
of" the representation, the Court was entitled to deal with the same on
merits rather than leaving the respondent no.1 to file a fresh petition.
3. Though undoubtedly in certain situations it has been held by the
Courts that the challenge to a decision taken in pursuance to directions of
the Court furnishes a fresh cause of action but in the present case the writ
petition was not disposed of by issuing such direction but in view of the
urgency was kept pending and we, in exercise of our appellate powers do
not deem it appropriate to interfere with the procedure followed by the
learned Single Judge in this case.
4. As far as the merits of the case are concerned, the respondent no.1 is a
purchaser for over Rs.13 crores of a commercial site in Jammu in an auction
held by Jammu Development Authority. The appellant has entered into a
collaboration agreement with a third party for developing the said site. A
part of the auction price of the said site was also contributed by the said
collaborator of the respondent no.1 and which included demand drafts for
Rs.30 lacs which were ultimately found to have been got prepared by one
Shri Rajiv Chanana.
5. The appellant has initiated proceedings against the said Shri Rajiv
Chanana under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) and
finding the said Shri Rajiv Chanana to have got prepared the demand drafts
aforesaid for Rs.30 lacs in favour of Jammu Development Authority
attached the same. The Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA
accordingly passed an order of attachment of the said sum of Rs.30 lacs and
which resulted in the development of the aforesaid commercial site being
held up. The representation made by the respondent no.1 to the appellant
was in this regard.
6. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 8th February, 2012 (supra),
finding that a substantial investment made by the respondent no.1 in the said
commercial site had been held up merely for the reason of the demand drafts
aforesaid for Rs.30 lacs having been sourced from the account of Shri Rajiv
Chanana aforesaid and further finding the respondent no.1 to be willing to
substitute the said amount of Rs.30 lacs, had directed the appellant to take a
decision. The appellant however vide its order dated 17 th February, 2012
merely reiterated its case against Shri Rajiv Chanana and that the
provisional attachment order of the sum of Rs.30 lacs had been confirmed
by the Adjudicating Authority.
7. The learned Single Judge has accordingly vide judgment impugned in
this appeal declared the provisional attachment order dated 9 th September,
2010 as well as the order dated 4 th February, 2011 of the Adjudicating
Authority to be having no application on the commercial site aforesaid,
from the time the respondent no.1 deposits an amount of Rs.30 lacs with the
appellant and on which deposit the attachment shall stand vacated.
8. The counsel for the appellant has argued that the order of attachment
having been confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority, the remedy
thereagainst was of statutory appeal only and the learned Single Judge ought
not to have in a writ petition vacated the attachment.
9. We are however unable to agree. Though it does not appear from the
record but we have still enquired from the counsel for the appellant whether
the appellant avers any nexus between Shri Rajiv Chanana aforesaid and the
respondent no.1 or whether it is the case of the appellant that the balance out
of the total price of over Rs.13 cores besides the amount of Rs.30 lacs
aforesaid is also tainted. The counsel for the appellant has fairly stated that
that is not the case. Once we find that the charge of the appellant is qua the
sum of Rs.30 lacs only out of the total consideration of Rs.13 crores paid for
the aforesaid commercial site and the appellant does not charge the
respondent no.1 with any nexus with the said Shri Rajiv Chanana, we find
the view taken by the learned Single Judge to be just and equitable and do
not feel any need to interfere therewith. We accordingly dismiss the appeal.
10. The counsel for the appellant has stated that the conduct of the
appellant in, vide order dated 17th February, 2012 rejecting the
representation cannot be faulted with since once the Adjudicating Authority
had confirmed the order of provisional attachment, it was not open to the
appellant to review the same. He on the said basis seeks waiver of costs of
Rs.50,000/- imposed by the learned Single Judge. We find merit in the said
contention and accordingly waive the costs of Rs.50,000/-.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
JUNE 1, 2012
„ pp ‟..
