2022 (3) TMI 922 - HC - Money Laundering

Issuance of summons - validity of issue of summons to appear before the Respondent No.1 and make a statement and disclose information despite the Petitioners being accused which is the subject matter of investigation - HELD THAT - The writ petitioner No.2 has appeared before the Enforcement Directorate and therefore in the considered opinion of this Court no further orders are required to be passed in W.A.No.198 of 2016 and all the issues are left open. Learned counsel for the appellants has informed this Court that the appellant No.2 has already appeared pursuant to the aforesaid summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate and therefore in the considered opinion of this Court no further orders are required to be passed in W.A. No. 199 of 2016 also and all the legal issues are left open - Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
- Writ petitions challenging the process and procedure adopted by the Enforcement Directorate in summoning the petitioners.
- Dismissal of the writ petitions by the learned Single Judge.
- Appeal against the dismissal through writ appeals.
- Appearance of the petitioners before the Enforcement Directorate in response to the summons.
- Disposal of the writ appeals as infructuous.
- Granting liberty to file a fresh writ petition if still aggrieved.

Analysis:
The case involved two writ petitions challenging the process and procedure of the Enforcement Directorate in summoning the petitioners. The relief sought in one of the writ petitions was the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the summoning process as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional. The learned Single Judge dismissed both writ petitions, leading to the filing of writ appeals in the High Court.

During the hearing of the writ appeals, the counsel for the appellants requested time to argue the matters. The attention was drawn to the main relief prayed in the writ petitions, emphasizing the issuance of summons by the Enforcement Directorate to one of the petitioners. It was noted that the petitioner had already appeared before the Enforcement Directorate in response to the summons issued, rendering further orders unnecessary in the opinion of the Court.

In the first writ appeal, it was concluded that since the petitioner had already appeared before the Enforcement Directorate, the appeal was disposed of as infructuous. Similarly, in the second writ appeal, where the appellant had also appeared pursuant to the summons, the appeal was disposed of. Liberty was granted to the appellants to file a fresh writ petition if they remained aggrieved, with all legal issues left open for future consideration by the appropriate forum.

The judgment highlighted the importance of compliance with summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate and the subsequent impact on the legal proceedings. The Court's decision to dispose of the appeals as infructuous was based on the petitioners' appearance before the Enforcement Directorate, indicating a resolution of the immediate legal concerns raised in the writ petitions.