Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1316 (RAJ)

Shakuntala Devi v. Union of India

2023-07-06

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2023
ORDER : (Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.) The present writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:- "(i) That Non-Petitioner Nos.5, 6 and 7 may kindly be directed to consider the application of petitioner to release the amount lying with them. (ii) Any other appropriate writ order which this Hon'ble Court consider just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had deposited her amount in the Adarsh Credit Cooperative Society Limited and her claim for such amount ought to be settled by the respondents on count of the fact that the assets of the such society ought to be utilized for reimbursing the lawful depositors. 3. Mr. R.D. Rastogi, learned Senior Counsel and Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, learned Deputy Solicitor General and Mr. B.P. Bohra appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that a coordinate Bench at Jaipur Bench in the case of Dipesh Mishra and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.21066/2019) decided on 11.07.2022 alongwith other connected matters, has already dismissed the claim of the depositors on count of the fact that an attachment order was passed by the Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India and, therefore, the complete assets of the society in question are subject to that attachment of the properties of the society passed under sub-Section (1) of section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, "the PMLA"). They further submits that unless the attachment is done away with any consequential relief at this stage is not permissible to the present petitioner. It is also informed by learned Senior Counsel and Additional Solicitor General of India that proper appeals are already pending for adjudication before the appellate Tribunal and it shall be open for the depositors to join in before the forum/appellate Tribunal in question, so as to agitate their claim for reimbursement of their invested amount. 4. The operative portion of the order passed in Dipesh Mishra and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (Supra) reads as follows:- "I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 4. The operative portion of the order passed in Dipesh Mishra and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (Supra) reads as follows:- "I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. This Court finds that in the present bunch of petitions, the petitioners are feeling aggrieved against the letter as well as provisional attachment order which have been issued by the Authority. This Court, finds that after filing of writ petitions, the Authorities have passed order, under Section 8 of the Act of 2002, and as such, the final attachment order has been issued. This Court, finds that none of the petitioners have ever made any application in their petitions for amendment, and as such, this Court has to consider as whether these writ petitions can be heard by this Court in view of final attachment orders, which have already been passed by the Authorities on 31.03.2020. This Court, finds that the relief sought in the present writ petitions, cannot be granted by this Court as their final attachment orders are not under challenge. This Court finds substance in the submissions of learned ASG-Mr. R.D. Rastogi that the relief which has been sought in these writ petitions cannot be granted to the petitioners. This Court further finds that during pendency of the writ petitions, if the final attachment order has been issued and the petitioners feel aggrieved against such order, then they are required to take necessary remedy to assail the same orders under the law. This Court, accordingly, dismiss these writ petitions with liberty to the petitioners to take appropriate legal remedy for challenging the subsequent orders, which have been passed by the Authority, wherein final attachment orders have been passed. The issue of locus and jurisdiction raised by the respondents before the Appellate Forum, can always be decided after hearing both the parties as per law. A copy of this order be separately placed in each petition." 5. This Court in the case of Dipesh Mishra and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (Supra) has also held that it is not the correct remedy at this stage to approach this Court in the writ jurisdiction, as there is an appropriate remedy under Section 26 of the PLMA. 6. This Court in the case of Dipesh Mishra and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (Supra) has also held that it is not the correct remedy at this stage to approach this Court in the writ jurisdiction, as there is an appropriate remedy under Section 26 of the PLMA. 6. Upon such submissions having been made, this Court is conscious of the fact that earlier orders were being passed for making representation to the liquidator by the depositors for their respective claims, but the turn of events and particularly, the judgment of this Hon'ble Court as well as the proposition under the PMLA, which includes attachment and the adjudication before the appellate Tribunal, does not call for any interference at this stage. 7. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take-up all her issues before the appellate Tribunal under the PMLA and also make her claim before the liquidator and such claim can be decided by the appellate Tribunal and in consequence of the same the liquidator may act strictly in accordance with law. Thereafter, if any cause of action remains, the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach this Court again. 8. All pending applications also stand disposed of.