2021 (6) TMI 1096 - HC - Money Laundering

Direction to provide a copy of ECIR to the petitioners forthwith - HELD THAT - A careful perusal of writ petition would show that respondent No.2 has been impleaded by his name, but he has not been impleaded in his official capacity, whereas the Assistant Director (Enforcement Directorate) ought to have been impleaded as respondent herein as writ is sought against Assistant Director (Enforcement Directorate) - Likewise, the petitioners have also pleaded that action of respondent No.2 in not supplying a copy of ECIR is arbitrary and irrational, but no quashing has been sought. In that view of the matter, instead of proceeding further, two weeks time is granted to learned counsel for the petitioners to make the record straight if they are so adviced - List this matter after two weeks.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to decision of Assistant Director (Enforcement Directorate) for not supplying a copy of ECIR; Impleading respondent No.2 in official capacity; Allegation of arbitrary and irrational action without seeking quashing.

Analysis:
The High Court judgment pertains to a writ petition challenging the decision of the Assistant Director (Enforcement Directorate) for not providing a copy of ECIR despite applications made by the petitioners. The Court noted that while respondent No.2 was named in the petition, he was not impleaded in his official capacity, which should have been done since the relief was sought against the Assistant Director. The petitioners claimed that the failure to provide the ECIR was arbitrary and irrational, but they did not seek quashing of the action. Consequently, the Court granted two weeks to the petitioners' counsel to rectify the procedural errors and make the record clear if advised to do so. The matter was released from being part-heard and scheduled for further listing after the given period.

This judgment highlights the importance of correctly impleading parties in official capacities when challenging official actions. It underscores the need for clarity in seeking specific reliefs and remedies in legal petitions. The Court's decision to grant time for rectification indicates a procedural approach to ensure fairness and adherence to legal standards. The case demonstrates the significance of procedural compliance in legal proceedings, emphasizing the necessity of precision and accuracy in framing legal petitions to address grievances effectively. The directive to list the matter after two weeks signifies the Court's commitment to ensuring proper adjudication of the issues raised in the petition.