[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Aihatesham Khan vs Directorate Of Enforcment on 4 December, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1 WP-45580-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
WP No. 45580 of 2025
(AIHATESHAM KHAN AND OTHERS Vs DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCMENT AND OTHERS )
Dated : 04-12-2025
Shri Vishal Baheti, learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Mrinal Arawal,
learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, learned Additional Solicitor General with
Shri Romesh Dave, learned Deputy Solicitor General for the respondents
No.1 and 3.
Shri Sudeep Bhargava, learned Dy. Advocate General for
respondents/State.
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner is heard on the question of
admission and interim relief.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the admission of
this petition as well as grant of interim relief.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the issue
raised in this petition has already been raised before the Apex Court and is
presently pending consideration in SLP (Cri.) No.265/2024. Taking into
consideration the fact of pendency of the SLP, Division Benches of this
Court as well as various Single Benches have entertained similar petitions
and have granted interim relief. It is submitted that on the ground of parity
the petitioner also deserves to be granted the same benefit.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted by relying
upon the decision of the Apex Court in Union Territory of Ladakh and
2 WP-45580-2025
Others V/s. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference and Another 2023
SCC OnLine SC 1140 that mere pendency of an issue before the Apex Court
cannot be a ground for the High Court not to decide the same dispute. It is
further submitted that the issue raised in this petition i.e. as to whether the
adjudicating authority under the provisions of the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2022 is required to consist of a judicial member has already
been adjudicated upon by the Delhi High Court in the case of W.P. (C)
No.11361/2015 Naresh Bansal and Others V/s. Adjudicating Authority and
Another decided on 24.11.2025 as well as by the Division Bench of the
Telangana High Court in Enforcement Directorate V/s. Karvy India Realty
Limited and Others 2024 SCC OnLine TS 18. It is hence submitted that since
similar issue has been decided by two different High Courts the petition does
not deserve to be entertained.
5. The issue which has been raised in this petition is already pending
before the Apex Court. Though the issue has been decided by two different
High Courts but there is no decision upon the same by this Court. A
judgment of another High Court is not binding upon this Court and can best
have a persuasive value hence merely for the reason that the issue raised has
been decided by two different High Courts it would not denude this Court of
its jurisdiction of adjudicating the dispute independently on merits.
6. In my opinion the issue raised in this petition deserves
consideration and decision. The petition is listed for the first time for
consideration on the question of admission and grant of interim relief. The
same deserves to be entertained and adjudicated upon merits. Various orders
3 WP-45580-2025
have already been passed by the Division Bench of this Court as well as
Single Bench entertaining similar petitions and granting interim relief. Those
petitions are still pending and have not been decided as yet. It would hence
not be justifiable to dismiss this petition at the threshold itself which is hence
entertained on merits. Learned counsel for the respondents are directed to file
their reply within a period of eight weeks.
7. Maintaining parity with the orders passed by the Division Bench
of this Court wherein interim relief has been granted in favour of similarly
situated petitioners, it is directed that till the next date of hearing the
adjudicating authority shall be free to proceed in the matter however final
order shall not be passed till the decision is taken by the Supreme Court in
SLP (Cri.) No.265/2024.
8. List after eight weeks along with W.P. No.25209/2025.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
ns
