JUDGMENT : Wasim Sadiq Nargal, J. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Judgment dated 08.11.2017 passed by the Single Bench of this Court in OWP No.771/2011, by virtue of which, a Writ Petition was filed by the Respondent (Tanveer Gul) under Article 226 of the Constitution with a prayer to quash the ‘Attachment Order’ and ‘Prohibition Order’ passed by the Vigilance Organization Kashmir under Section 8-B (1) and Proviso to Section 8-B(1) of Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 the State has preferred this appeal. The learned Single Judge has allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the Impugned Prohibition Order bearing no. SP (ABP)/11-FIR-312-19 dated 01-03-2011 as well as impugned Attachment Order No. SP (ABP)-FIR-37/2010-10-11-15 dated 22.06.2011. The Vigilance Organization Kashmir (VoK) has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment dated 08.11.2017 passed by this Court. Before proceeding further, it would be apt to give the brief factual background of the case— Factual Details. 2. The acquisition of land for expansion of National Highway to four lanes in village Lethpora, Pulwama and adjacent villages was required to be made under Land Acquisition Act Svt, 1990 and compensation amount in accordance with the award was to be disbursed amongst eligible beneficiaries /Land Owners by Shri Adil Rashid Naqash, Additional Deputy Commissioner Pulwama in his capacity as Collector Land Acquisition, National Highway (Four Lanes). It was found that during that the period 2009-2010, compensation amount of over Rs. 20 crores meant for disbursement amongst the beneficiaries (Land Owners) whose land was acquired in village Lethpora and adjacent villages was misappropriated. In this connection, FIR No. 174/2010 under section 409,120-B, 467,468, 171 and 420 of Ranbir Penal Code was registered at Police Station Awantipora. 3. The Director General of Police, vide his letter no. Legal/GB/44/2010-18371 dated 14-10-2010, recommended the investigation of the case to be made by the State Vigilance Organization. Accordingly, the Government referred the case to Vigilance Organization Kashmir (VOK) for investigation. In this connection, the State Vigilance Organization received a communication dated 27-10-2010 from Government of Jammu and Kashmir, Civil Secretariat, Home Department referring the case FIR No. 174/2010 to State Vigilance Organization relating to misappropriation of over Rs. 20 crore land compensation scam for thorough investigation. Accordingly, the Government referred the case to Vigilance Organization Kashmir (VOK) for investigation. In this connection, the State Vigilance Organization received a communication dated 27-10-2010 from Government of Jammu and Kashmir, Civil Secretariat, Home Department referring the case FIR No. 174/2010 to State Vigilance Organization relating to misappropriation of over Rs. 20 crore land compensation scam for thorough investigation. Thereafter, Vigilance Organization Kashmir (VOK) proceeded to investigate the matter vide FIR No. 37/2010 dated 08-11-2010 under section 5(1)(c), 5(1)(D) read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 and section 120-B, 409, 468, 471 of Ranbir Penal Code, 1989. 4. The investigation conducted by Vigilance Organization Kashmir has revealed as under:— (a) Misappropriation of compensation amount of over twenty two crores in the year 2009-2010 meant for disbursement amongst eligible beneficiaries (land owners) whose land was acquired for expansion of National Highway to four lanes in village Lethpora, Pulwama and adjacent villages. The Compensation amount was to be disbursed by Shri Adil Naqash, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Pulwama in his capacity as Collector Land Acquisition, National Highway (Four Lanes). (b) Further, the compensation amount was transferred to the J&K Bank Branch Lethpora without having any official account of Additional Deputy Commissioner Pulwama in the said Branch. (c) Shri Nazir Ahmad Mir, then Manager - JK Bank Branch, Lethpora in criminal conspiracy with the Collector Land Acquisition and others opened and operated ‘Account No. CD-571, CD-587 and CD-588 in J&K Bank Lethpora in the name of Collector Land Acquisition, Pulwama without following laid down procedure and without obtaining the required authority/specimen signatures of the Collector Land Acquisition, Pulwama as was mandatory for opening a Government Account. It has been found that the accused persons in connivance with each other transferred Rs. 36,49,37,198.39 to the J&K Bank Branch Lethpora, Pulwama. From, the said account being account no. 571-CD, 587-CD, 588-CD on the basis of fraud authority, the money was transferred to the personal accounts of the accused persons namely Showkat Ahmad Dar, Farukh Jahanzeb (husband of the Respondent) and others. (d) The accused Showkat Ahmad Dar fraudulently transferred more than Rs. 7.0 crores out of the misappropriated amount to accused Farukh Jahanzeb (husband of the Respondent) in his Account No. CD-953, CD-1187, CC-402 and CD-1101 maintained in J&K Bank Branch, Awantipora. (e) Accused Farukh Jahanzeb (husband of Respondent) has withdrawn more than Rs. (d) The accused Showkat Ahmad Dar fraudulently transferred more than Rs. 7.0 crores out of the misappropriated amount to accused Farukh Jahanzeb (husband of the Respondent) in his Account No. CD-953, CD-1187, CC-402 and CD-1101 maintained in J&K Bank Branch, Awantipora. (e) Accused Farukh Jahanzeb (husband of Respondent) has withdrawn more than Rs. 2,60,00,000 in cash from his accounts out of the misappropriated amount. The cash withdrawals so made have been found invested by the accused, Farukh Jahanzeb for raising assets. (f) The following immovable assets have been raised by Accused Farukh Jahanzeb (husband of the Respondent) from the misappropriated Government funds:- (i) Accused Farukh Jahazeb @ Rinku S/o Ghulam Mohi ud Din Bhat R/o Awantipora presently Iqbal Colony Rawalpora, Srinagar has acquired 3 kanals and 16 marlas of land under khasra no. 418 min in his own name at Lalgam, Tral through a broker namely Gulzar Ahmad Lone S/o Abdul Gafffar R/o Noorpora Tral during the year 2009-10. The payments were made to the said broker from the account number CD-953, CC402 and CE-1101 of accused Farukh Jahanzeb out of the misappropriated amount into the account number CE-1254 and CD-1106 maintained by said broker. (ii) Accused Farukh Jahazeb was also found to have purchased 9 kanal and 08 marlas of land at Medora, Trail under khasra no. 78/82/97 min through the same broker Gulzar Ahmad Lone during the year 2009-10. The payments were made to the said broker from the account number CD-953, CC402 and CE-1101 of accused Farukh Jahanzeb out of the misappropriated amount transferred into brokers account number CE-1254 and CD-1106. (iii) The accused was also found to have purchased 7 kanals of land at Noorpora, Tral under khasra no. 3643/2168 min, 3586/2169 min, 303 min; out of which 3 kanals and 18 marlas were purchased by the accused from one Latief Ahmad Bhat S/o Assadullah Bhat R/o Awantipora and Mukhtar Ahmad Bhat (Latief’s brother) in the month of March 2009 for an amount of Rs. 22,54,200.00. The payment was made from account number CD-953, CD-1187, CD-402 and CD-1101 of accused Farukh Jahanzeb out of misappropriated amount to the seller through his account number SB-15431 at J&K Bank Awantipora. 22,54,200.00. The payment was made from account number CD-953, CD-1187, CD-402 and CD-1101 of accused Farukh Jahanzeb out of misappropriated amount to the seller through his account number SB-15431 at J&K Bank Awantipora. The accused was also found to have purchased 3 kanals and 2 marlas from one Muhammad Yousuf Khan S/o Abdul Majid Khan R/o Padgampora through one Ghulam Hassan Sheikh S/o Abdul Salam R/o Check Noorpora Tehsil Tral during the corresponding period. (iv) Accused Farukh Jahanzeb was also found to have purchased one kanal 6 marlas of land at Shahbad payeen under khasra no. 422,710/43 and 433 min for Rs 4 lacs in the year 2009 from one Ulfat Jan W/o Ali Muhammad Mir R/o Ganger Tral. The money utilized for the purpose of said immovable property (land) has been found made to the broker/sellers from the misappropriated amount by the accused Farukh Jahanzeb through his account number CD-953 into the account no. SB-63 J&K Bank Branch Lasjan of the seller Mst. Ulfat Jan. (v) Accused Farukh Jahanzeb @ Rinku has purchased four shops (two in ground floor and two in first floor of shopping complex) near District Court Complex Pulwama belonging to Mst Fatima widow of Ghulam Muhammad Kumar under Khasra No. 2268/1551 at Court Road Pulwama. The money utilized for the purchase of these shops has been made from the misappropriated amount meant for expansion of National Highway to four lanes. Investigation so far conducted has revealed that Rs. 3,50,000.00 were found transferred from the account no. CC-402 to the account No. SB-497 (Bazar Batamaloo) maintained by one Farooq Ahmad Kumar S/o Ghulam Muhammad Kumar R/o 48-Iqbal Abad Lane No. 01 Srinagar (seller). (vi) The Accused Farukh Jahanzeb has also purchased 1 kanal 14 marlas of land, under khasra nos. 937 & 931 Min, at Iqbal Colony Rawalpora in the year 2009-10 in the name of his wife Mst. Tanveer Gul for an amount of Rs. 41,65,000.00 from one Shahnawaz Sheikh S/o Abdul Samad Sheikh R/o Ibrahim Colony Hyderpora through the brokers namely Abdul Aziz Ganai S/o Ghulam Muhammad Ganai R/o Mohalla Pattcheck Rawalpora and Showkat Javed R/o Barzulla Srinagar. It is apt to mention that the wife of the accused has been recently appointed as teacher). Tanveer Gul for an amount of Rs. 41,65,000.00 from one Shahnawaz Sheikh S/o Abdul Samad Sheikh R/o Ibrahim Colony Hyderpora through the brokers namely Abdul Aziz Ganai S/o Ghulam Muhammad Ganai R/o Mohalla Pattcheck Rawalpora and Showkat Javed R/o Barzulla Srinagar. It is apt to mention that the wife of the accused has been recently appointed as teacher). The major portion of the payment for the purchase of said land has been found to have been made from the misappropriated amount through the account number CD-953, CD-1187 into the accounts of seller/broker during the period 2009-2010 as per the following details:— S. No. Account Number Date Amount Recipient 1. CD-953 24-11-2009 1,00,000.00 SB-4782 (02780) Showkat Javed S/o Ghulam R/o Barzulla Bagat, Srinagar 2. CD-953 24-11-2009 1,00,000.00 -do- 3. CD-953 07-04-2009 1,00,000.00 -do- 4. CD-1187 24-04-2009 5,00,000.00 -do- 5. CD-1187 08-05-2009 4,00,000.00 -do- 6. CD-1187 15-06-2009 5,00,000.00 SB-10009 (0278 Bagat Barzulla Muhammad Shanawaz Sheikh S/o Abdul Samad Sheikh R/o Bagat Srinagar 7. CD-953 30-07-2009 5,00,000.00 CD-806 (JKB Rawalpora). HK Home Solutions, prop. Muhammad Shahnawaz Sheikh S/o Abdul Samad R/o Hyderpora 8. CD-953 20-11-2009 4,60,000.00 SB-4762-0278 in R/o Showkat Javed S/o Ghulam R/o Bagat Barzulla (vii) Moreover, the accused Farukh Jahanzeb was found to have constructed a two storey palatial house on the aforementioned piece of land at Iqbal Colony Rawalpora in the year 2009-2010. The money for the purpose of material and Labour components was also found to have been made from the misappropriated amount by the accused through its account number CD-1101, CD-1187, CD-953 to the accounts of suppliers of building materials is tabulated as under:— S. No Account No. Dated Amount Paid to Account No./Name Remarks 1. CD-953 06-11-2009 23600.00 CD-144-0524 (J&K Bank Natipora) Tahir Enterprises prop Tahid Ahmad Dar S/o Mushtaq Ahmad R/o Jawahar Nagar Sgr. The person has supplied the joinery items for the construction of the house and his father has worked on the construction of the house as a lead mason. 2. CD-953 06-11-2009 12500.00 CD-144-0524 (J&K Bank Natipora) Tahir Enterprises prop Tahid Ahmad Dar S/o Mushtaq Ahmad R/o Jawahar Nagar Sgr. -do- 3. CD-953 07-11-2009 25900.00 CD-1035-0524 (J&K Bank Natipora) Tahir Enterprises prop Tahid Ahmad Dar S/o Mushtaq Ahmad R/o Jawahar Nagar Sgr. -do- 4. CD-953 16-11-2009 40000.00 CD-144-0524 (J&K Bank Natipora) Tahir Enterprises prop Tahid Ahmad Dar S/o Mushtaq Ahmad R/o Jawahar Nagar Sgr. -do- 5. -do- 3. CD-953 07-11-2009 25900.00 CD-1035-0524 (J&K Bank Natipora) Tahir Enterprises prop Tahid Ahmad Dar S/o Mushtaq Ahmad R/o Jawahar Nagar Sgr. -do- 4. CD-953 16-11-2009 40000.00 CD-144-0524 (J&K Bank Natipora) Tahir Enterprises prop Tahid Ahmad Dar S/o Mushtaq Ahmad R/o Jawahar Nagar Sgr. -do- 5. CD-953 23-11-2009 7000.00 CD-144-0524 (J&K Bank Natipora) Tahir Enterprises prop Tahid Ahmad Dar S/o Mushtaq Ahmad R/o Jawahar Nagar Sgr. -do- 6. CD-953 23-11-2009 24200.00 CD-144-0524 (J&K Bank Natipora) Tahir Enterprises prop Tahid Ahmad Dar S/o Mushtaq Ahmad R/o Jawahar Nagar Sgr. -do- 7. CD-953 21-12-2009 15000.00 SB-1035-0524 (J&K Bank Natipora) Tahir Enterprises prop Tahid Ahmad Dar S/o Mushtaq Ahmad R/o Jawahar Nagar Sgr. -do- 8. CD-953 22-12-2009 50000.00 CD-144-0524 (J&K Bank Natipora) Tahir Enterprises prop Tahid Ahmad Dar S/o Mushtaq Ahmad R/o Jawahar Nagar Sgr. -do- 9. CD-953 22-12-2009 15000.00 SB-1035-0524 (J&K Bank Natipora) Tahir Enterprises prop Tahid Ahmad Dar S/o Mushtaq Ahmad R/o Jawahar Nagar Sgr. -do- 10. CD-953 10-02-2010 51000.00 CD-144-0524 (J&K Bank Natipora) Tahir Enterprises prop Tahid Ahmad Dar S/o Mushtaq Ahmad R/o Jawaha -do- 11. CD-953 11-02-2010 63000.00 SB-110479-0322 (J&K Bank Jawahar Nagar Srinagar Nazir Ahmad Dar S/o Abdul Ahad Dar R/o Ikhraj Pora Jawahar Nagar Srinagar -do 12. CD-953 11-02-2010 31000.00 SB-110479-0322 (J&K Bank Jawahar Nagar Srinagar Nazir Ahmad Dar S/o Abdul Ahad Dar R/o Ikhraj Pora Jawahar Nagar Srinagar. -do 13. CD-953 13-02-2010 14000.00 SB-1035-0524 (J&KBank Natipora), Tahir Joinery Naikbagh, Srinagar Prop Tahir Ahmad Dar S/o Mushtaq Ahmad R/o Ikhraj Pora Srinagar -do- 14. CD-953 13-02-2010 34000.00 CD-144-0524 (J&K Bank Natipora) Tahir Enterprises prop Tahid Ahmad Dar S/o Mushtaq Ahmad R/o Jawahar Nagar Sgr. -do- 15. CD-953 13-02-2010 15000.00 CD-144-0524 (J&K Bank Natipora) Tahir Enterprises prop Tahid Ahmad Dar S/o Mushtaq Ahmad R/o Jawahar Nagar Sgr. -do- 16. CD-953 13-02-2010 7000.00 CD-144-0524 (J&K Bank Natipora) Tahir Enterprises prop Tahid Ahmad Dar S/o Mushtaq Ahmad R/o Jawahar Nagar Sgr. -do- 17. CD-1101 06-10-2009 23000.00 CD-144-0524 (J&K Bank Natipora) Tahir Enterprises prop Tahid Ahmad Dar S/o Mushtaq Ahmad R/o Jawahar Nagar Sgr. -do- 18. CD-1101 19-10-2009 40000.00 CD-144-0524 (J&K Bank Natipora) Tahir Enterprises prop Tahid Ahmad Dar S/o Mushtaq Ahmad R/o Jawahar Nagar Sgr. -do- 19. CD-953 21-01-2010 60000.00 CD-63-0524 Tahir Enterprises prop Tahir Ahmad Mir S/o Gh. Mohammad R/o Sgr. The firm has supplied the aluminium stairs & doors etc. 20. CD-1187 11-02-2010 46000.00 CD-63-0524 Tahir Enterprises prop Tahir Ahmad Mir S/o Gh. Mohammad R/o Sgr. -do- 21. -do- 19. CD-953 21-01-2010 60000.00 CD-63-0524 Tahir Enterprises prop Tahir Ahmad Mir S/o Gh. Mohammad R/o Sgr. The firm has supplied the aluminium stairs & doors etc. 20. CD-1187 11-02-2010 46000.00 CD-63-0524 Tahir Enterprises prop Tahir Ahmad Mir S/o Gh. Mohammad R/o Sgr. -do- 21. CD-1187 03-10-2009 20000.00 Cash withdrawal made by Mushtaq Ahmad from J&K Bank branch Rawalpora The person has worked as head mason in the constructions of the impugned house. 22. CD-953 07-11-2009 14400.00 CD-182-0239) (Rangreth) Dar & Sons Prop Riyaz Ahmad Dar S/o Abdul Rahim R/o Budgam 9419001708 Has supplied GI pipes and other hardware items to the accused. 23. CD-953 21-12-2009 28000.00 CC-144-0239 (J&K Bank Rangreth) Dar Cement Store prop Fayaz Ahmad Dar S/o Ghulam Muhammad R/o Budgam, 941903612 Has supplied cement to the accused. 24. CD-953 22-12-2009 40000.00 CD-942-0861 (J&K Bank Rawalpora) Dar and Builder prop S/o Muhammad Yousuf Dar R/o Parabagh Rawalpora, Old Airport Road Sgr. 0194-2300874, 9906492755 Has supplied cement to the accused. 25. CD-953 13-02-2010 8000.00 CC-144-0239 (J&K Bank Rangreth) Dar Cement Store prop Fayaz Ahmad Dar S/o Ghulam Muhammad R/o Budgam, 9419036129, 2300329 Has supplied cement to the accused. (g) The value of the afore-said properties is only a fraction of the amount misappropriated by the accused persons including Shri Farukh Jahanzeb in connivance with each other. Approval by Commissioner of Vigilance. 5. The Commissioner of Vigilance was approached vide Letter No. SP(ABP)-11-FIR-234 dated 14-02-2011 seeking his approval for prohibiting accused persons including Farukh Jahanzeb (husband of the Respondent) from disposing off the afore-mentioned properties as envisaged under Proviso to Section 8-B (1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006; the Commissioner of Vigilance vide his Letter No. SPO/FIR/67/2010/K-2635 dated 25-02-2011 has accorded approval in writing for issuing prohibition orders. Further, the Commissioner of Vigilance was approached vide Communication No. SP (ABP)/11-FIR-784 dated 18-05-2011 followed by Letter No. SP (ABP)/11-FIR-907 dated 07-06-2011 seeking his approval for attachment of property viz two storied residential house constructed over 01 Kanal and 14 Marlas of land under khasra No. 937 & 931 Min. at Iqbal Colony Rawalpora in terms of Section 8-B (1) of J&K Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2006 read with JK Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2007 in case FIR No. 37/2010. The Commissioner of Vigilance vide his DO no. at Iqbal Colony Rawalpora in terms of Section 8-B (1) of J&K Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2006 read with JK Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2007 in case FIR No. 37/2010. The Commissioner of Vigilance vide his DO no. SPO-FIR/37/2010-K-8684 dated 16-06-2011 has accorded approval in writing for attachment of the said property as required under section 8-B (1) of the Act. Prohibitory Order 6. That, in terms of powers conferred under proviso to Section 8-B (1) of Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006, vide order dated 01-03-2011 the Superintended of Police, Vigilance Organization Kashmir, directed Shri Farukh Jahanzeb along with others accused persons not to transfer or otherwise deal with the properties mentioned as under:— (a) 05 Kanals and 7½ Marlas of land situated at Nowgam Bypass in the name of accused Showkat Ahmad Dar and his associates. (b) 03 Kanals and 06 Marlas situated at Lalgam Tral, 09 Kanals and 08 Marlas at Mideora, 07 Kanals of Land at Noorpur Tral, 01 Kanal 06 Marlas at Shahbad Payeen, 04 Shops near District Court Complex, Pulwama in the name of accused Farukh Jahanzeb. (c) Two storied residential house raised over 01 Kanal and 14 Marlas of land at Iqbal Colony, Rawalpora in the name of Mst. Tanveera Gul W/o Accused Farukh Jehanzeb. Attachment Order 7. That vide order dated 22.06.2011, Superintendent of Police (ABP), Vigilance Organization of Kashmir in terms of powers conferred upon him under section 8-B(1) of Jammu and Kashmir P.C. (Amendment) Act, 2006 attached the property of the accused Shri Farukh Jahazeb and further directed that such properties shall not be transferred by any mode whatsoever. The following property has been attached:- (a) 01 Kanal and 14 Marlas of Land under khasra no. 937 and 931 Min. in the name of Tanweera Gul W/o Shri Farukh Jahanzeb and a two storey palatial house constructed on the said plot of land at Iqbal Colony, Rawalpora. Writ Petition 8. That, feeling aggrieved of afore-mentioned prohibition order and attachment order passed by the Superintendent of Police (ABP), Vigilance Organization Kashmir, Tanveera Gul w/o Accused Farukh Jahazeb invoked the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble High Court in a Writ Petition being OWP No. 771/2011 and challenged the prohibition order and attachment order on the grounds detailed out as under. Writ Petition 8. That, feeling aggrieved of afore-mentioned prohibition order and attachment order passed by the Superintendent of Police (ABP), Vigilance Organization Kashmir, Tanveera Gul w/o Accused Farukh Jahazeb invoked the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble High Court in a Writ Petition being OWP No. 771/2011 and challenged the prohibition order and attachment order on the grounds detailed out as under. (a) The Petitioner has purchased the land out of her funds in the year 2008 as is evident from the extracts of Jamabandi and Girdawari when the owner of the land measuring 14 Marlas covered by Survey No. 937 min situated in Mouza Rawalpora Tehsil South, obtained extracts for sale of the land in favour of the Petitioner. The Petitioner had paid substantial amount of consideration at the time the bargain was struck with the vendor, Mohammad Shahnawaz Sheikh, in September, 2008. The Petitioner had started construction of the house immediately thereafter in the year 2008 and had completed it in the first quarter of 2009. The sale deed was formally executed on 20-09-2009 though Petitioner had by that time constructed the house and occupied it for residential purposes from 1st week of April 2009 as is evident from the electric connection provided to her by the Electric Department through Installation No. 30475 and ID No. 11603. The case has been registered at Police Station Awantipora as FIR No. 174 in the year 2010. According to the information she believes to be authenticated and correct, the amount of award was for the first time drawn from the Bank in the name of Showkat Ahmad Dar in May 2009. The Petitioner or her husband are not involved either with the acquisition of the land or the distribution of amount of compensation nor has any part of their land been acquired for the four-lanning National Highway. The Petitioner and her husband can, therefore, in no way be involved in the commission of offences punishable under section 5 (1) (c), 5 (1) (d) read with section 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 1208-B, 409, 468, 471 RPC. The allegation of conspiracy levelled against them is also an afterthought and baseless. The Petitioner had completed the residential house and started living in it much before the alleged offences are started to have been committed by the Collector in association with other officers. The allegation of conspiracy levelled against them is also an afterthought and baseless. The Petitioner had completed the residential house and started living in it much before the alleged offences are started to have been committed by the Collector in association with other officers. The Investigating officer has suppressed the relevant fact with regard to the purchase of land and the construction of the house on Survey No. 937 min with an oblique motive so as to gain publicity and render the Petitioner houseless. In this behalf the Investigating Officer in the impugned order has made a very vague allegation/statement that during investigation, accused Farukh Jahazeb has been found to have purchased the properties in the year 2009-10 out of the misappropriated funds that has allegedly fallen to his kitty through Showkat Ahmad Dar. No details of any kind are given with regard to these purchases. However, in Para 12 of the order it has been stated that the accused Farukh Jahanzeb has purchased land measuring 01 Kanal 14 Marlas under Survey No. 937 and 931 min in the name of his wife Tanweera Gul and constructed a palatial house over it and the money for the purpose has been found channelled from the mis-appropriated amount. This statement is also vague with no details provided in regard to the period of purchase, including month or the year in which the land was purchase. The construction of the house finds mentions in para 3 of the order by saying that said house was constructed in the year 2009. The statement made in this behalf is on the face of it false and having been made dishonestly. So as to bring the property under attachment. The purchase of land measuring 14 Marlas covered by Survey No. 937 min, on which the house is constructed, has been made in September 2008 and the house was completed by the beginning of first quarter of 2009. The Petitioner, as per the official documents, has been residing in the house with her family from April 2009. The question of purchasing the land and construction of the house on the said land in the year 2009-10 allegedly from the misappropriated amount does not arise. (b) The order impugned shows that Petitioner is not accused of any embezzlement, dishonesty or conspiracy or the commission of the alleged offences which are being investigated by the Vigilance Organization. The question of purchasing the land and construction of the house on the said land in the year 2009-10 allegedly from the misappropriated amount does not arise. (b) The order impugned shows that Petitioner is not accused of any embezzlement, dishonesty or conspiracy or the commission of the alleged offences which are being investigated by the Vigilance Organization. Nothing is discernable from the order impugned that the house constructed by the Petitioner on the land purchased from her own funds was a ‘benami transaction’. The Petitioner being in conspiracy of an act, which has allegedly taken place much after the purchase of land and construction of the house, for using the misappropriated amount for the aforesaid purchases is therefore, imaginary and the allegations are made in vacuum without any substance. There is also no logic in connecting the purchase of the land and the construction of the house with any offence which is alleged to have been committed in the year 2009-10. (c) The provisions of Section 8 (B) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act as amended by the Act of 2006 on the face of it shows that a property can be brought under the attachment only in regard to which the Investigating Officer (not below the rank of SP of the Vigilance Organization) has reason to believe that such property has been acquired by resorting to such acts of omission and commission which constitute an offence of ‘criminal misconduct’ as defined under Section 5 of the Act and that such property can be seized and brought under attachment after approval from the Commissioner Vigilance in writing. Even after the approval is obtained the order of attachment or seizure of the property is only tentative and can be executed only after the order is reviewed by the Designated Authority. Even after the approval is obtained the order of attachment or seizure of the property is only tentative and can be executed only after the order is reviewed by the Designated Authority. For understanding the legal position-the contours of the Investigating Officers’ power under Sub Section (1) of Section 8(B) of Prevention of Corruption Act is reproduced below in so far as relevant; “8-B. Powers of the Investigating Officers:— (1) If an Officer 9 not below the rank of Superintendent of Police) of the vigilance Organization, investigation an offence committed under this Act, has reason to believe that any property in relation to which an investigation is being conducted has been acquired by resorting to such acts of omission and commission which constitute an offence of ‘criminal misconduct’ as defined under section 5, he shall, with the prior approval in writing of the Commission of the Vigilance Organization, make an order seizing such property, where it is not practicably to seize such property, make an order of attachment directing that such property shall not be transferred or otherwise dealt with, except with the prior permission of the officer making such order or of the Designated Authority before whom the properties seized or attached are produced and a copy of such order shall be served on the person concerned.” (d) The plain reading of the provision reveals that the power to seized or attach the property can be effected; firstly, by the Investigating Officer who shall not be below the rank of Superintendent of Vigilance; secondly, that the offence under which the property can be seized or attached has been acquired by resorting to such acts of omissions and commission which constitutes offence of ‘criminal misconduct’ as defined under Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act; thirdly, that during investigation of such offence the Investigating officer must on reasons believe that the property under reference must be such in relation to which investigation is being conducted; and finally, that before making order of seizure/attachment the Investigating Officer must have prior approval of Vigilance Commissioner. From the language used it as apparent that all the aforesaid features must necessarily exist in order to legitimately authorize to exercise the power mentioned therein. From the language used it as apparent that all the aforesaid features must necessarily exist in order to legitimately authorize to exercise the power mentioned therein. It further appears that for arising at the conclusion that there are reasons for the Investigating Officer to believe that the property has been acquired by commission of criminal misconduct there must be material existing and disclosed in the order so as to avoid any arbitrariness on the part of the Investigating Officer for depriving a person from his immovably property like that of a residential house which is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution to the State subjects of the State. On the face of the order no material is disclosed to justify the conclusion that a reasonable belief was entertained by the Investigating Officer about the acquisition of the property by criminal misconduct. The material which has been disclosed to the Investigating Officer by the Petitioner when the Prohibition Order was issued in respect of residential house in question was completely ignored and has been suppressed so as to justify the order by making a wild and bald statement that the house has been built from misappropriated amount which misappropriation has taken place admittedly after May 2009 when the house was completely for being occupied as a residential area by 1st week of April 2009. (e) That the property which can be brought under attachment should be one about which the investigation is being conducted. The investigation in the present case is conducted with regard to the alleged misappropriation of funds made available to Collector Lan Acquisition National Highway, Pulwama, by dishonest and corrupt means. The house of the petitioner is not the subject matter of investigation. Be that as it may, the provision of Section 8 (8) can be utilized only with regard to the property obtained by acts of omission and commission which constitute criminal misconduct as defined in J&K Prevention of Corruption Act. The criminal misconduct is defined in Section 5 and Section 5 in so far as relevant reads as under:— “5. Be that as it may, the provision of Section 8 (8) can be utilized only with regard to the property obtained by acts of omission and commission which constitute criminal misconduct as defined in J&K Prevention of Corruption Act. The criminal misconduct is defined in Section 5 and Section 5 in so far as relevant reads as under:— “5. Criminal misconduct.— (1) A public Servant is said to commit the offence of Criminal misconduct— (a) If he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 161 of the State Ranbir Penal Code, Samvat 1989; (b) If he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to have been, or to be, or to be likely to be concerned in any proceedings or business transacted or about to be transacted by him, or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of an public servant to whom he is subordinate, or from any person whom he knows to be interested in or related to the persons so concerned; or (c) If he dishonest or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do; or (d) If he, by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as public servant obtains for himself or for any other persons any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (e) If he of nay person on his behalf is in possessionor has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession, for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known source of income. Explanation:—For the purpose of clause € the expression “property” includes any interest in property, movable or immovable, and the proceeds of sale thereof and any money or investment which for the time being represents the proceeds of sale” Bare perusal of the definition of misconduct shows that the offence is exclusively attributed to a public servant. Explanation:—For the purpose of clause € the expression “property” includes any interest in property, movable or immovable, and the proceeds of sale thereof and any money or investment which for the time being represents the proceeds of sale” Bare perusal of the definition of misconduct shows that the offence is exclusively attributed to a public servant. The property in terms of Section 8 (B) which can be brought under the mischief of seizure/attachment should belong to or should be possessed by the public servant Section 8 (B) read with Section 5 of Prevention of Corruption Act, does not bring within its ambit the property of a person who is alleged to be a conspirator. Involved in the commission of offence punishable under section 120 (b) of RPC; not to speak of a person who is not even involved in such conspiracy with the public servant. The petitioner submits that her house has been attached by the Investigating Officer without any authority and power availably to him under section 8 (B). The order of attachment is, therefore, without Jurisdiction and void ab initio. The Petitioner is not only entitled to release of the property, but is also entitled to compensation for which she will take appropriate legal action after receiving necessary legal advice on that score. (f) That the property having been brought under the attachment without any authority by abuse of process of law does not come within the four corners of Section 8 (B) and, therefore, the Petitioner instead of availing the remedy of appeal has filed this writ petition for safeguarding her fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. (g) The right to hold and possess the property is a fundamental right in the State. The right cannot be lightly taken away by way of the procedure prescribed under section 8(B) providing un-channelled and unguided powers to the Investigating Officer to deprive a person from his property. The provision of section 8 (B) and other relevant provisions are, therefore, ultravires to the Constitution, liable to be struck down and removed from the statue book. The right cannot be lightly taken away by way of the procedure prescribed under section 8(B) providing un-channelled and unguided powers to the Investigating Officer to deprive a person from his property. The provision of section 8 (B) and other relevant provisions are, therefore, ultravires to the Constitution, liable to be struck down and removed from the statue book. The corruption may be hated subject, but the right to property is a fundamental right and such a right cannot be taken over or curtailed or infringed on the mere ipsedixit of the Investigating Officer who merely on entertaining a belief that property has been obtained by acts of omission and commission punishable under section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act brings it under attachment. The Power apart from being unjust is unwarranted and amounts to arbitrariness. The Petitioners residence has been taken away and she has been rendered homeless. The right to residence is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Investigating Officer has passed the impugned order in complete disregard of the Petitioners fundamental and statutory rights and she has been thrown away on the roadside and her household goods have also been removed from the house. The order in the circumstances of the case amounts to punishment even before trial or even before any acquisition of criminal ability is made or raised against the petitioner. (h) The Section 8 (B) of Prevention of Corruption Act as amended provides deprivation of property without notice to the owner/holder of property irrespective of the fact whether the owner or occupier is an accused or not. By way of attachment contemplated by and under Section 8 (B), the owner is denied his right to possess and hold the property even though he may not e an accused in the case or may not be otherwise involved in the alleged commission of offence punishable under section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The provision of law is therefore, unreasonable and unjust, liable to be struck down. (i) The order impugned, including the Prohibition Order issued on 01-03-2011 creates fetters upon the rights of the Petitioner to deal with the property as a lawful owner. It is her fundamental right to deal with the property in any manner which she chooses, including its sale to third party. (i) The order impugned, including the Prohibition Order issued on 01-03-2011 creates fetters upon the rights of the Petitioner to deal with the property as a lawful owner. It is her fundamental right to deal with the property in any manner which she chooses, including its sale to third party. The proviso to section 8 (B) is also ultravires as that also given an unguided power to Investigating Officer to issue a Prohibition Order directing a lawful owner of the property not to sell or transfer it. (j) That since the provisions of section 8 (B) are not applicable with regard to the property of a private person, particularly when such a person is not an accused in the case and that the order is without jurisdiction the petitioner is filing this petition for enforcement and protection of her fundamental rights as no other remedy is an efficacious remedy in the circumstances of the case”. 9. The Writ court without going into the merits of the case, framed the following questions for consideration:— “Where the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act as amended by the aforesaid (Amendment) Act 2006 providing for attachment/seizure of properties in terms thereof can be invoked by the Superintendent of Police of Vigilance Organization in a case where the investigation had been conducted by an Officer below the rank of SP and whether order of seizure/attachment would be bad due to existence of these circumstances.” 10. The writ Court after perusal of the final report (charge sheet) submitted in the court of competent jurisdiction came to conclusion that the investigation has been conducted/completed by one Dy. SP Gulzar Ahmad who had then furnished it to the SSP for recommending the same. In view of the same, the writ court held that it is only Superintendent of Police, investigating the case, who can attach the property under section (1) of Section 8 (B) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Accordingly, the writ court held that the investigation has been conducted/completed by one Dy. SP Gulzar Ahmad,, as such Superintendent of Police who issued the impugned prohibition order and impugned attachment order not being the investigating Officer of the case, could not have passed the said impugned orders. 11. Accordingly, writ court held that the SP VOK had no powers to issue prohibition or attachment orders as he had not investigated the matter. SP Gulzar Ahmad,, as such Superintendent of Police who issued the impugned prohibition order and impugned attachment order not being the investigating Officer of the case, could not have passed the said impugned orders. 11. Accordingly, writ court held that the SP VOK had no powers to issue prohibition or attachment orders as he had not investigated the matter. In the said background, the Writ Court allowed the writ petition by quashing the prohibition order dated 01-03-2011 and attachment order 22-06-201 and the property attached has been released back to the petitioner (Respondent herein). 12. The writ court has further observed that Mr. Lone, the lawyer appearing for the petitioner (Respondent herein) has not raised any other point except the question that stands answered, herein above i.e. whether SP, Vigilance Organization Kashmir (VOK) had powers to issue impugned orders when he was not investigating the case FIR. Letters Patent Appeal 13. The Vigilance Organization Kashmir, feeling aggrieved of the impugned judgment dated 08-11-2017 has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal under clause 12 of Letters Patent. Submission of Parties 14. We have heard Mrs Aasifa Padroo, Ld. AAG for Appellant and none appeared on behalf of the Respondent. On behalf of Appellant following submissions have been urged:— (i) The impugned Judgment has been passed by the Hon’ble Writ Court without considering the objections of the Appellants in its right perspective, wherein the correct regulatory position was brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Writ Court. Had the Ld. Writ Court considered the objections, the impugned judgment would not have been passed. The impugned judgment, therefore is contrary to the correct, factual and regulatory position attending the case, as such deserves to be set aside. (ii) That during the course of investigation, it was revealed that the accused Farukh Jahanzeb (Husband of the Writ petitioner) has purchased 3 kanals and 6 Marlas of land at laglam tral, 9 kanal 8 marals of land at Midoora Tral, 7 Kanals of land at Noorpora Tral, o1 Kanal and 6 markas at Shahbad Payeen, 04 Shops near District Court Complex Pulwama and has constructed a two storey palatial residential house at Iqbal Colony Rawalpora on a piece of land measuring 01 Kanal and 14 Marlas. The money utilized for the purchase of above said immovable properties has been found channelled to the accused Farukh Jahanzeb from the amount misappropriated from the Public Exchequer. The money utilized for the purchase of above said immovable properties has been found channelled to the accused Farukh Jahanzeb from the amount misappropriated from the Public Exchequer. The Ld. Single Judge has not appreciated at these facts while passing the impugned judgment. Hence on this count also the impugned judgment is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. (iii) The investigation of the present case was conducted by Dy. SP under the supervision of the then SSP and the investigation was conducted under the close supervision and control of SSP VOK and only after the satisfaction of SSP VOK that the money utilized for the purchase of above said immovable properties has been channelled to the accused Farukh Jahanzeb from the misappropriated amount by other accused the SSP VOK ordered the attachment of property after assuring requisite procedure and after satisfaction as per the records and investigation. The requirements of section 8 (b) have thus been compiled with in accordance with the procedure. (iv) The purpose of Section 8-B of P.C Act has a broader scope which mandates SSP Vigilance to attach the properties in order to prevent disposal of the property connected with the misappropriated and embezzlement money of the State Exchequer. The detachment of the said properties in favour of the accused definitely hampers the procedure meant to safeguard the interest of State Exchequer. (v) That the SSP Vigilance Organization Kashmir besides supervising the Vigilance Organization Kashmir is functioning as SHO Police Station Vigilance Organization Kashmir. It is pertinent to mention here that SHO is known as chief investigating officer of a Police Station and u/s 154 Cr.Pc is the only authority to conclude the investigation of the case on merits. It is only SHO who is authorized to file the outcome of any FIR before the Hon’ble Courts in accordance with the procedure. (vi) That keeping in view the flow of complaints, etc, in the Vigilance Organization, the SHO is empowered to delegate his powers to investigation officer of the Police Station, however the SHO is supervising the investigation on daily basis and it is only SHO whose satisfaction is mandated on every such disposal of the Investigations before proceeding ahead into the matter. Hence, the orders impugned in the writ petition were in accordance with Law. Hence, the orders impugned in the writ petition were in accordance with Law. (vii) That since SHO P/S Vigilance Organization Kashmir delegated his powers to Dy SP to conduct a thorough investigation in case FIR No. 37/2010 P/S VOK under his supervision in accordance with the procedure and it is SHO who assures the satisfaction into the final outcome of investigation and accordingly the final investigation report forwarded to the Government of J&K for requisite sanction in terms of section 6 of J&K P.C Act, Svt;2006 and in turn the sanction was accorded by the Government after application of mind against the in-service accused for launching prosecution against them. (viii) Since SHO P/S Vigilance Organization is the chief Investigating officer and every such investigations are carried out under his supervisions as such the SHO (SSP Vigilance Organization) is the only authority to exercise the powers in terms of section 8 of P.C. Act, Svt; 2006 regarding attachment of properties found acquired by resorting to acts of omission and commission with necessary requisites/formalities before and after such attachments. It is submitted that the Appellant No. 4 has acted well within the colour and authority of the office vested in him and in accordance with the relevant provisions of law governing the procedure for effecting seizure/attachment of property/assets obtained by the accused (husband of the respondent herein) by corrupt and ill-gotten means. 15. On behalf of the Respondent, none has appeared today and Respondent/her counsel have not been appearing on the previous date of hearings also, however before the writ court, the Respondent has restricted the arguments/submissions on the sole issue mentioned herein below:- (i) The investigation has been conducted/completed by one Dy. SP Gulzar Ahmad and it is only Superintendent of Police, investigating the case, who can attach the property under section (1) of Section 8 (B) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Since the investigation has been conducted/completed by one Dy. SP Gulzar Ahmad, as such Superintendent of Police who issued the impugned prohibition order and impugned attachment order not being the investigating Officer of the case, could not have passed the said impugned prohibition order and attachment order. Since the investigation has been conducted/completed by one Dy. SP Gulzar Ahmad, as such Superintendent of Police who issued the impugned prohibition order and impugned attachment order not being the investigating Officer of the case, could not have passed the said impugned prohibition order and attachment order. (ii) Since, admittedly the investigation has been conducted by Dy SP Gulzar Ahmad, therefore, the Superintendent of Police had no occasion to investigate the case FIR , then how he could derive reason to believe that the attached property has been acquired by criminal misconduct within the meaning of Section 5 of J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 Analysis 16. We have heard the learned counsel for the Appellant at length. Firstly, it becomes important to refer to the scheme of the statute. Section 8-B of the Act reads as under:— “8-B. Powers of the investigating officers.— (1) If an officer (not below the rank of Superintendent of Police) of the Vigilance Organization, investigating an offence committed under this Act, has reason to believe that any property in relation to which an investigation is being conducted has been acquired by resorting to such acts of omission and commission which constitute an offence of ‘criminal misconduct’ as defined under section 5, he shall , with the prior approval in writing of the Commissioner of the Vigilance Organization, make an order seizing such property and, where it is not practicable to seize such property, make an order of attachment directing that such property shall not be transferred or otherwise dealt with, except with the prior permission of the officer making such order or of the Designated Authority before whom the properties seized or attached are produced and a copy of such order shall be served on the person concerned: Provided that the Investigating Officer may, at any stage of investigation after registration of F.I.R. in respect of any case under the Act where he has reason to believe that such property is likely to be transferred or otherwise dealt with to defeat the prosecution of the case direct, with the prior approval of the Vigilance Commissioner, that such property shall not be transferred or dealt with for such period, not exceeding ninety days, as may be specified in the order except with the prior approval of the Designated Authority. Explanation: – For purposes of this section “attachment” shall include temporarily assuming the custody, possession and/or control of such property]. (2) The investigating officer shall inform the Designated Authority, within forty-eight hours, of the seizure or attachment of such property together with a report of the circumstances occasioning the seizure or attachment of such property, as the case may be. (3) It shall be open to the Designated Authority before whom the seized or attached properties are produced either to confirm or revoke the order of seizure or attachment so issued within 4 [thirty days] Provided that an opportunity of being heard is afforded to the Investigating Officer and the person whose property is being attached or seized before making any order under this sub-section. Provided further that till disposal of the case the Designated Authority shall ensure the safety and protection of such property. (4) In the case of immovable property attached by the investigating officer, it shall be deemed to have been produced before the Designated Authority, when the investigating officer notifies his report and places it at the disposal of the Designated Authority. (5) Any person aggrieved by an order under the proviso to sub-section (1) may apply to the Designated Authority for grant of permission to transfer or otherwise deal with such property. (6) The Designated Authority may either grant, or refuse to grant, the permission to the applicant. (7) The Designated authority, acting under the provisions of this Act, shall have all the powers of a civil court required for making a full and fair enquiry into the matter before it. 8-C. Appeal against the order of Designated Authority. (1) Any person aggrieved by an order made by the Designated Authority under sub-section (3) or subsection (5) of section 8-B 1 [may prefer an appeal, within one month from the date of receipt of the order, to the Special Judge] (Anti-Corruption) (hereinafter referred to as Special Court) and the Special Court may either confirm the order of attachment of property or seizure so made or revoke such order and release the property or pass such order as it may deem just and proper. (2) Where any property is seized or attached under section 8-B and the Special Court is satisfied about such seizure or attachment, it may order forfeiture of such property, whether or not the person from whose possession it is seized or attached is prosecuted in the Special Court for an offence under this Act. 29 LPA No. 152 of 2020 (3) It shall be competent for the Special Court to make an order in respect of property seized or attached,– (a) directing it to be sold if it is a perishable property and the provisions of section 525 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Samvat 1989 shall, as nearly as may be practicable, apply to the net proceeds of such sale; (b) nominating any officer of the Government, in the case of any other property, to perform the function of the Administrator of such property subject to such conditions as may be specified by the Special Court.” 17. From the bare reading of Section 8-B and Section 8-C of the Act, the following is deducible:— (a) The Attachment Order can be passed under Section 8-B(1) by an investigating officer. (b) The Prohibition Order could be passed under Proviso to Section 8-B(1) for a maximum period of 90 days. (c) That within 48 hours, the Designated Authority has to be informed of the attachment order passed under Section 8B (2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 together with a report of the circumstances occasioning the attachment of property. (d) Section 8-B(3) provides that it shall be open for the Designated Authority before whom the attached properties are produced either to confirm or revoke the order of attachment. (e) Proviso to Section 8B(3), provides that an opportunity of hearing is afforded to the person whose properties are being attached before making any order of confirmation or revocation. (f) The Designated authority, acting under the provisions of this Act, shall have all the powers of a civil court required for making a full and fair enquiry into the matter before it. (g) Section 8-C of Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 provides for an appeal against the order passed by the Designated Authority under Section 8-B (3), before the Special Judge, Anti Corruption and the Appellate Court could either confirm the order of attachment. 18. (g) Section 8-C of Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 provides for an appeal against the order passed by the Designated Authority under Section 8-B (3), before the Special Judge, Anti Corruption and the Appellate Court could either confirm the order of attachment. 18. At the outset, it is required to be noted that against the attachment order passed under the provisions of Section 8B(1) of Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006, the Respondent straightway preferred writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir (Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir does not exist anymore). It is not in dispute that the statute provides that within 48 hours, the Designated Authority has to be informed of the attachment order passed under Section 8B(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 together with a report of the circumstances occasioning the attachment of property. Section 8B(3) provides that it shall be open for the Designated Authority before whom the attached properties are produced either to confirm or revoke the order of attachment. Proviso to Section 8B(3), provides that an opportunity of hearing is afforded to the person whose properties are being attached before making any order of confirmation or revocation. Further Section 8-C of Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 provides for an appeal against the order passed by the Designated Authority under Section 8-B(3), before the Special Judge, Anti Corruption and the Appellate Court could either confirm the order of attachment. In that view of the matter, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the attachment order in view of the availability of statutory remedy under the Act. Also, it is not the case of the Respondent that Statutory remedy is not the efficacious and effective remedy available to her. Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India has considered in catena of judgments as to whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should be entertained, by by-passing the statutory remedies. 19. Also, it is not the case of the Respondent that Statutory remedy is not the efficacious and effective remedy available to her. Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India has considered in catena of judgments as to whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should be entertained, by by-passing the statutory remedies. 19. The Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Thansingh Nathmal v/s. Superintendent of Taxes (1964) 6 SCR 654 , considered the question whether the High Court of Assam should have entertained the writ petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution when the statutory remedy was available for assailing the impugned order. The Court held as under:- “The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is couched in wide terms and the exercise thereof is not subject to any restrictions except the territorial restrictions which are expressly provided in the Articles. But the exercise of the jurisdiction is discretionary: it is not exercised merely because it is lawful to do so. The very amplitude of the jurisdiction demands that it will ordinarily be exercised subject to certain self-imposed limitations. Resort that jurisdiction is not intended as an alternative remedy for relief which may be obtained in a suit or other mode prescribed by statute. Ordinarily the Court will not entertain a petition for a writ under Article 226, where the petitioner has an alternative remedy, which without being unduly onerous, provides an equally efficacious remedy. Again the High Court does not generally enter upon a determination of questions which demand an elaborate examination of evidence to establish the right to enforce which the writ is claimed. The High Court does not therefore act as a court of appeal against the decision of a court or tribunal, to correct errors of fact, and does not by assuming jurisdiction under Article 226 trench upon an alternative remedy provided by statute for obtaining relief. Where it is open to the aggrieved petitioner to move another tribunal, or even itself in another jurisdiction for obtaining redress in the manner provided by a statute, the High Court normally will not permit by entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the machinery created under the statute to be bypassed, and will leave the party applying to it to seek resort to the machinery so set up.” 20. The three judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd v/s. State of Orissa (1983) 2 SCC 433 , considered the question whether a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution should be entertained when statutory remedy is available to assail the impugned order, the Hon’ble Court held as under: “Under the scheme of the Act, there is a hierarchy of authorities before which the petitioners can get adequate redress against the wrongful acts complained of. The petitioners have the right to prefer an appeal before the Prescribed Authority under sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Act. If the petitioners are dissatisfied with the decision in the appeal, they can prefer a further appeal to the Tribunal under sub-section (3) of Section 23 of the Act, and then ask for a case to be stated upon a question of law for the opinion of the High Court under Section 24 of the Act. The Act provides for a complete machinery to challenge an order of assessment, and the impugned orders of assessment can only be challenged by the mode prescribed by the Act and not by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is now well recognised that where a right or liability is created by a statute which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute only must be availed of. This rule was stated with great clarity by Willes, J. in Wolverhampton New Waterworks Co. v. Hawkesford in the following passage:— “There are three classes of cases in which a liability may be established founded upon statute..... But there is a third class, viz. where a liability not existing at common law is created by a statute which at the same time gives a special and particular remedy for enforcing it. ...the remedy provided by the statute must be followed, and it is not competent to the party to pursue the course applicable to cases of the second class. The form given by the statute must be adopted and adhered to.” The rule laid down in this passage was approved by the House of Lords in Neville v. London Express Newspapers Ltd. and has been reaffirmed by the Privy Council in Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago v. Gordon Grant & Co. The form given by the statute must be adopted and adhered to.” The rule laid down in this passage was approved by the House of Lords in Neville v. London Express Newspapers Ltd. and has been reaffirmed by the Privy Council in Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago v. Gordon Grant & Co. Ltd. and Secretary of State v/s. Mask & Co, It has also been held to be equally applicable to enforcement of rights, and has been followed by this Court throughout. The High Court was therefore justified in dismissing the writ petitions in limine.” 21. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal v/s. Dunlop Inida Ltd & Ors. (1985) 1 SCC 260 has held as under:— “Article 226 is not meant to short-circuit or circumvent statutory procedures. It is only where statutory remedies are entirely ill- suited to meet the demands of extraordinary situations, as for instance where the very vires of the statute is in question or where private or public wrongs are so inextricably mixed up and the prevention of public injury and the vindication of public justice require it that recourse may be had to Article 226 of the Constitution. But then the Court must have good and sufficient reason to bypass the alternative remedy provided by statute. Surely matters involving the revenue where statutory remedies are available are not such matters. We can also take judicial notice of the fact that the vast majority of the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are filed solely for the purpose of obtaining interim orders and thereafter prolong the proceedings by one device or the other. The practice certainly needs to be strongly discouraged.” 22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Raj Kumar Shivare v/s. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement & Anr., (2010) 4 SCC 772 , the Hon’ble Court held as under:- “31. When a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievance and that too in a fiscal statute, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. In this case the High Court is a statutory forum of appeal on a question of law. That should not be abdicated and given a go-by by a litigant for invoking the forum of judicial review of the High Court under writ jurisdiction. In this case the High Court is a statutory forum of appeal on a question of law. That should not be abdicated and given a go-by by a litigant for invoking the forum of judicial review of the High Court under writ jurisdiction. The High Court, with great respect, fell into a manifest error by not appreciating this aspect of the matter. It has however dismissed the writ petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.” 23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of City and Industrial Development Corpn. v. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala [ (2009) 1 SCC 168 ] highlighted the parameters which are required to be kept in view by the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Paras 29 and 30 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:— “29. In our opinion, the High Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is duty-bound to take all the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration and decide for itself even in the absence of proper affidavits from the State and its instrumentalities as to whether any case at all is made out requiring its interference on the basis of the material made available on record. There is nothing like issuing an ex parte writ of mandamus, order or direction in a public law remedy. Further, while considering the validity of impugned action or inaction the Court will not consider itself restricted to the pleadings of the State but would be free to satisfy itself whether any case as such is made out by a person invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 30. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 is duty bound to consider whether:— (a) adjudication of writ petition involves any complex and disputed questions of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved; (b) the petition reveals all material facts; (c) the petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for their solution of the dispute; (d) person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches; (e) ex facie barred by any laws of limitation; (f) grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any valid law; and host of other factors” 24. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of The State of Maharashtra and Others versus Greatship (India) Limited, Civil Appeal No.4956 of 2022 dated September 20, 2022 has held that High Courts ought not to entertain writ petitions, bypassing the statutory remedies. Conclusion 25. Taking into consideration the law laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decisions cited herein above, the writ court has seriously erred in entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 against the attachment order passed under Section 8-B(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006, bypassing the statutory remedies. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 08.11.2017 is quashed and set aside. 26. We also hold that Prohibition Order bearing No. SP (ABP)/11-FIR-312-19 dated 01.03.2011 was valid for only for 90 days, in other words, it automatically lapsed after the period of 90 days. The writ court committed an error by returning a finding with regard to prohibition order which had become redundant by the efflux of time. 27. The writ petition filed before the High Court challenging the attachment order and prohibition order is hereby dismissed. 28. The petitioner is relegated back to avail statutory remedy in accordance with the mandate of Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006. As such, the Statutory Authority (Designated Authority), after providing an opportunity of hearing to the Appellant as well as Respondent (Tanveer Gul), shall confirm or revoke the attachment order without raising any question of limitation. 29. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case in favor of either of the parties and it is for the Designated Authority to consider the proceedings on its/their own merits and without being influenced in any way by any of the observations made by the Writ Court which otherwise have been set aside by the present order/judgment. 30. No order as to costs.