9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 861X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'PC Act') involving amount of Rs. 1,58,39,262/-. Provisional order of attachment came to be passed in PAO NO. 13/2016 on 30.03.2016 and a complaint came to be lodged before the adjudicating authority in O.C. No. 575/2016 under Section 5(5) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short 'PML Act'). The adjudicating authority confirmed the provisional order of attachment by order dated 14.09.2016 under Section 8(3) of PML Act. Notice dated 05.10.2016 under Section 8(4) of PML Act came to be issued for taking possession of properties. 3. Both the appellants filed W.P. Nos. 63381-382/2016 challenging the said notice, inter alia contending that very initiation of proceedings itself is bad in law, inasmuch as, provision of PC Act came to be amended to the schedule under PML Act subsequently and on the date of charge sheet being filed, there was no offence under the PML Act. During the course of pendency of the writ petition, a memo came to be filed by the respondent therein on 07.12.2017 contending that writ petitions are not maintainable and petitioners have alternate and efficacious remedy ava ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dered in P.K. RAMACHANDRAN vs. STATE OF KERALA reported in JT 1997(8) SC 189 whereunder it was held that provisions of the Limitation Act cannot be so liberally construed so as to frustrate the very purpose of the provisions of Limitation Act, Appellate Tribunal dismissed the applications and consequently dismissed the appeals as aforestated. Hence, these second appeals have been filed by the appellants contending that substantial questions of law as formulated in these appeals would arise for consideration. 5. We have heard Sri Ashok R Kalyanashetty, learned Advocate appearing for appellants and Sri Jayakar Shetty, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for respondent-1. We have perused the impugned order as well as provisions of law which has been pressed into service. 6. It is the contention of Sri Ashok R Kalyanashetty, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants that there was an inadvertent lapse in specifically not challenging the order dated 14.09.2016 in W.P. Nos. 63381-382/2016 though entire proceedings has been challenged and as such, question of delay in filing the appeal should not be so construed as same coming in the way of appeal being considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondents itself having been challenged before the writ Court in W.P. Nos. 63381-382/2016, same has to be construed as though petitioners-appellants had challenged the order dated 14.09.2016. We are not inclined to accept the same for the simple reason that said order was not factually challenged in the writ petitions nor they did seek for setting aside the order of Adjudicating Authority. Having perused the prayer made in the said writ petitions, we notice that petitioners-appellants have not sought for quashing of the said order. On the other hand, petitioners had contended that respondent-1 could not have invoked the provisions of PML Act on the premise that Section 3 of PC Act was not included in paragraph 8 of the Schedule to PML Act. 9. The aforesaid writ petitions which came to be filed by the petitioners on 13.12.2016 challenging the very proceedings initiated by the authorities came to be dismissed on 16.05.2018. Against the order of Adjudicating Authority which came to be passed on 14.09.2016. Appeal is provided under Section 26 of the PML Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 26 mandates that said appeal should be filed within a period of 45 days and proviso to sub-section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allenged in the said writ petitions and petitioners therein incidentally referred to the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority dated 14.09.2016 in the said writ petitions without seeking for same being quashed. If at all, petitioners had challenged the said order, contours of the present appeals would have been changed and contention of Mr. Ashok R Kalyanashetty, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners-appellants which is to the effect that Section 14 would get attracted, would have been squarely applicable. However, order passed by the Adjudicating Authority dated 14.09.2016 having not been challenged, benefits flowing from Section 14 would not enure to the benefit of petitioners. We say so for the reason that in the aforesaid writ petitions, respondents had filed a memo to the effect that writ petitions were not maintainable and they have alternate remedy. Yet, petitioners did not chose to challenge the order dated 14.09.2016 in the said writ petitions, which was pending even as on 07.12.2017 i.e., date of filing of memo. On the other hand, when the matter was taken up for consideration by learned Single Judge on 04.01.2018, submission came to be made that orders of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g laxity, negligence, carelessness and what is applicable to a rustic villager or a person who is not conversant with the worldly affairs, i.e., to plead ignorance about nuances of filing appeals, cannot be extended to the petitioners herein because first petitioner was a Group 'A' officer in Government of Karnataka and the second appellant is none other than his wife. In other words, they are fully conversant with the nuances of filing petitions and appeals as is evident from their acts in challenging orders passed by authorities in different forums at different stages. Yet, they chose not to challenge the order of Adjudicating Authority dated 14.09.2016 and only after writ petition Nos. 63381-382/2016 came to be dismissed on 16.05.2018, appeals in question came to be filed on 03.07.2018 by which date, there was already an inordinate delay. 13. It is for these myriad reasons, Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the appeals and we find that there is no question of law much less substantial question of law as framed in the appeal memorandum which requires to be framed in these appeals to be adjudicated and answered. As such, we do not find any good ground to entertain these ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
