ORDER: Assailing the legal validity of order vide No.182/SNR/CYB/2024, F.No.OCA/MDS/13/2024-NDPS, dated 20.03.2024 passed by respondent No.2 in exercise of powers under Section 68F(2) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as 'NDPS Act') confirming the order passed by respondent No.3 dated 20.02.2024, the present writ petition is filed. The relief prayed in this writ petition is to quash the freezing order of the respondent No.2 dated 20.03.2024 and consequently permit the petitioner and his family members to deal with sale transactions/operation of bank accounts in respect of all their movable and immovable properties. FACTS OF THE CASE: 2. Facts giving rise to file this writ petition as stated in the affidavit are that on 25.12.2023, respondent No.3/Inspector of Police, Shadnagar Police Station has registered a crime against the petitioner in Cr.No.894 of 2023 for the alleged offences under Section 8(C) r/w 22(C) and 29 of NDPS Act on the allegations that there was a search and seizure of two (2) KGs of Alprazolam3NVSK, J W.P.No.298 of 2025substance from a residential building by name “Sakkubai Nilayam", Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District. It is submitted that the said crime is at investigation stage only and no final report has been filed so far and that on the communication of registration of the said crime against the petitioner and others, their movable and immovable properties enlisted in the present impugned order of seizure are frozen on the basis of 'reasons to believe'. 3. It is submitted that the Inspector of Shadnagar Police Station (Empowered Officer) in his order dated 20.02.2024 as regards 'reasons to believe' submits that Person Affected (PA.1) is an Excise Constable and PA.2 (i.e., the petitioner) were involved in similar drug trafficking case in Cr.No.1386 of 2023 under Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act within the limits of Gachibowli Police Station and since the petitioner had no source of income to acquire the frozen movable and immovable property and also since PA.4 (wife of PA.2) and PA.6 (son of PA.2) has no source of income, the frozen properties (movable and immovable) were presumed to have been acquired from illicit trade of narcotic drugs. The petitioner's further case is that though he has filed a reply dated 11.03.2024 to the show cause notice dated4NVSK, J W.P.No.298 of 202523.02.2024 issued by respondent No.2, the same has not been considered and the freezing order dated 20.02.2024 has been confirmed by respondent No.2 vide order dated 20.03.2024. The relevant paragraph No.10, records the findings which are extracted hereunder for reference: “a) It is not in dispute that the accused persons have committed offence punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a period not less than 10 years and which may extend to 20 years and according to the investigating officer the accused have acquired the properties out of tainted income of Narcotic Drugs. This allegation of the investigating Officer is prima facie evident from the fact that the accused have ?? source of income or inadequate income to be creditworthy enough to acquire the impugned properties in the first place. Thus the investigation officer attempted to establish nexus between illicit income of the accused and the properties held in the name of the associates or their relatives. On careful perusal of the documents and material on file, I am inclined to believe that the properties acquired by the accused are attributable to their income, earnings or assets derived from the sale proceeds or narcotic drugs. Following analysis on the acquisition of the properties by the accused vis-a-vis their source of income will show the reasons for believe.... 11. .... 12. .... 13. .... 14. .... 15. .... 16. .... 17. .... 18. .... 19. After going through the investigation carried out by the empowered officer and also on the basis of material on record, I am satisfied that the movable and immovable properties in table A, B and C of para 4 as explained above, are 'illegally acquired properties' in terms of clause G of Section 68B of the Act and the same are likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with in a manner which will result in frustrating the proceedings under the Act. Accordingly, I pass the following order: ORDER 20. Accordingly, I pass the following order: ORDER 20. Now, therefore I the Commissioner/ Competent Authority and Administrator, (SAFEM(FOP)A & NDPSA), in exercise of powers conferred on me, under Section 68F(2) of the NDPS Act, hereby confirm the freezing order dated 20.02.2024 passed by the Shri K.Pratap Lingam, Inspector, Shadnagar Police Station and direct that (i)the immovable properties in the form of house sites and agricultural lands held by PA.2 (vide Doc.Nos.5026/2019, 213/2020, 4707/20226NVSK, J W.P.No.298 of 2025 [mortgaged document in respect of sale deeds 360/2019, 213/2020, 4707/2022 [mortgaged document in respect of sale deeds 360/2021 & 361/2021], 17309/2022, and 2589/2023), PA.4 (vide Doc.Nos.4748/2020, 4753/2020, 4747/2020, and 4826/2022), and PA.6 (vide Doc.Nos.26668/2018, 24805/2018, 1328/2018, 7884/2018, 8292/2019, 13116/2019, 21303/2019, 13117/2019 and 2288/2021), as mentioned in the Table A of para 4 above, (ii) movable property of vehicle bearing Regn.No.TS-17- M-0112 held by PA.5, as mentioned in Table B of para 4 above and (iii) movable properties of credit balances available in the SBI Bank Account No.62356918333 held by PA.1, SBI Bank A/c.Nos.52182623577, and 32975182574 held by PA.2, SBI Bank A/c.No.62256245608 held by PA.3 and SBI Bank A/c.No.52182608093 held by PA.4 including accretions thereto, as mentioned in the Table C of para 4 above, shall not be transferred, disposed of, alienated or otherwise dealt with, without my prior permission. 21. This order passed by the Competent Authority under Section 68F(2) of the NDPS Act, is a confirmation of the seizure/freezing order issued by the Empowered Officer, under Section 68F(1) of the NDPS Act. This order places a temporary restraint on the accused person or the persons affected, from concealing or transferring or dealing with the illegally7NVSK, J W.P.No.298 of 2025acquired property, in any manner, under Chapter VA of the NDPS Act, 1985. The empowered officer may keep track of the criminal proceedings initiated against the accused person and in the event of conviction with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more, immediately report such conviction, to this Office, for initiating further action for forfeiture of illegally acquired property, under Section 68H of the NDPS Act. On the other hand, if the accused person is acquitted and no appeal is preferred against the acquittal, the empowered officer, may seek release of the restraint on the illegally acquired property or assets under Section 68-Z of the NDPS Act. 22. On the other hand, if the accused person is acquitted and no appeal is preferred against the acquittal, the empowered officer, may seek release of the restraint on the illegally acquired property or assets under Section 68-Z of the NDPS Act. 22. In the Bank account statements, many deposit and transfer entries are found and therefore the Investigating Officer may further examine the origin/destination of flow of money and investigate properties if any, for legal action. 23. Any officer or any person affected, if aggrieved by this order made under Section 68F(2), may within 45 days from the date on which the order is served on the person affected, appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, 4th floor, Lok Nayak Bhavan, Khan Market, New Delhi – 110 003.” Questioning the said confirmatory order dated 20.03.2024, the present writ petition is filed. 8 NVSK, J W.P.No.298 of 2025 4. Mr.Vedula Venkatramana, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has filed a synopsis stating that on 25.12.2023 respondent No.3/Inspector of Police, Shadnagar Police Station had registered a crime against the petitioner in Cr.No.894 of 2023 for the alleged offences under Section 8(C) r/w 22(C) and 29 of NDPS Act. The allegations raised in the said crime are that (2) Two KGs of Alprazolam in colour packets was contained in a car of Golla Ramesh (PA.1) near the compound of Sakkubai Nilayam. On 12.12.2023, Gachibowli Police Station has registered FIR No.1386 of 2023 against petitioner (A.7 in the said Crime) wherein the allegation is that 17 KGs of Alprazolam was agreed to be sold to the petitioner and the money will be given later. A charge sheet has been filed before I Additional District Judge, L.B.Nagar. It is submitted that in both the crimes it is seen that there is no recovery of Alprazolam either from the body or from the house of the petitioner. Thereafter, on 20.02.2024, the Inspector of Police, Shadnagar has passed freezing order alleging that movable and immovable properties acquired by the petitioner are tainted through illegal income by selling of Alprazolam. On 20.03.2024, the competent authority i.e., respondent No.2 has passed the confirmatory order of freezing order dated 20.02.2024 under Section 68F(2) of NDPS Act.9NVSK, J W.P.No.298 of 2025 5. Thereafter, on 20.02.2024, the Inspector of Police, Shadnagar has passed freezing order alleging that movable and immovable properties acquired by the petitioner are tainted through illegal income by selling of Alprazolam. On 20.03.2024, the competent authority i.e., respondent No.2 has passed the confirmatory order of freezing order dated 20.02.2024 under Section 68F(2) of NDPS Act.9NVSK, J W.P.No.298 of 2025 5. In the grounds raised in the writ petition, it is urged that the freezing order passed by investigating officer and the confirmation of the same by respondent No.2 is illegal and arbitrary and ultra virus to the provisions of NDPS Act, since the investigation is still at the crime stage and no charge sheet has been filed so far by respondent No.3/Police. That the recovery of 2 KGs of Alprazolam from the residential house cannot formulate a justifiable reason for presuming that all the immovable and movable property of the petitioner and his family members were brought by illicit money acquired by drug trafficking. That the competent authority i.e., respondent No.2 being a quasi-judicial authority, is supposed to record adequate reasons while passing the order of the confirmation of the seizure and freezing order passed by the investigating officer. It is further urged that even if the offence registered against the petitioner by Gachibowli Police station is of the year 2023, there is no justification to draw a presumption that the lands, houses and bank accounts of the petitioner are all acquired by the income derived from drug trafficking so as to attract exercising the power under Section 68F(2) of NDPS Act.10 NVSK, J W.P.No.298 of 2025 6. This Court in I.A.No.2 of 2025 vide order dated 06.01.2025 has temporarily suspended the impugned order by relying on the judgment of the Aslam Mohammad Merchant ( supra ). COUNTER AFFIDAVIT BY RESPONDENT NO.3: 7. This Court in I.A.No.2 of 2025 vide order dated 06.01.2025 has temporarily suspended the impugned order by relying on the judgment of the Aslam Mohammad Merchant ( supra ). COUNTER AFFIDAVIT BY RESPONDENT NO.3: 7. A counter affidavit has been filed by Inspector of Police, Shadnagar Police Station i.e., respondent No.3 herein stating that on 25.12.2023 at about 9.00 AM, the Woman Sub Inspector of Police, PS Shadnagar, received credible information that one person was illegally selling alprazolam and another person purchasing the same at “Sakkubai Nilayam”, near Akula Mallesham Function Hall, New City Colony, Parigi Road, Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District and made a GD entry and proceeded to the said place along with staff and panch witnesses and at about 10.00 AM, found a person coming towards the car from the compound of the said mentioned “Sakku Bai Nilayam” and while both were discussing, immediately she along with the team caught hold of them and seized four bags from the hands of one Golla Ramesh (A2), and had found white colour powder and on weighing, found it to be two KGs of Alprazolam. On enquiry, it was revealed that the said contraband was purchased by Al11 NVSK, J W.P.No.298 of 2025from one Vittal Goud (A2) and sold it to one G.Venkataiah (petitioner herein and others). It is stated that four months ago Accused No.1 purchased 10 KGs of Alprazolam from Accused No.2 and sold the same to the petitioner herein. Thereafter, the Sub-Inspector seized two KGs of Alprazolam along with car, and brought the accused persons along with the seized property to the Shadnagar Police Station and lodged a report. Based on the said report, the Inspector of Police, Shadnagar Police Station lodged a report in Cr.No.894 of 2023 for the offence under Section 8(c) read with 22(c) of NDPS Act. The petitioner is Accused No.3 in the said Crime. 8. It is further submitted that the petitioner has illegally acquired several assets in the name of his family members in contravention to Section 68C of NDPS Act and the assets are in the possession of his family members and the money in their Bank Accounts and property have been acquired illegally from the illegal act of selling alprazolam. 8. It is further submitted that the petitioner has illegally acquired several assets in the name of his family members in contravention to Section 68C of NDPS Act and the assets are in the possession of his family members and the money in their Bank Accounts and property have been acquired illegally from the illegal act of selling alprazolam. It is further submitted that the petitioner is likely to conceal, transfer or deal with the same in any manner which will result in frustrating any proceedings relating to forfeiture of such property under Chapter VA of NDPS Act. As such respondent No.3 – SHO, Shadnagar Police Stationpassed the freezing Order No.182/SNR/CYB/2024 dated 20.02.2024 in the above crime No.894/2023 under Section 68F(1) of the NDPS Act. The Income tax returns filed by the petitioner for the last 6 years were referred in the counter affidavit are as follows:Assessment year 2022-23 - 4,33,090.00 Assessment year 2021-22 - 3,96,220.00 Assessment year 2020-21 - 4,53,870.00 Assessment year 2019-20 - 3,15,710.00 Assessment year 2018-19 - 10,03,902.00 Assessment year 2017-18 - 8,11,275.00 9. It is further submitted that as per the statement of Encumbrance on property, the petitioner and family had purchased the following properties: (purchased in the name of the petitioner) 7. Doc.No.24805/2018 – Rs.3,34,000.00 8. Doc.No.1328/2018 dated 11.01.2018 – Rs.4,25,000.00 9. Doc.No.7884/2018 dated 22.05.2018 – Rs.5,94,000.00 10. Doc.No.13116/2019 dated 16.07.2019 – Rs.3,00,000.00 11. Doc.No.13117/2019 dated 16.07.2019 – Rs.9,00,000.00 12. Doc.No.21303/2019 dated 03.12.2019 – Rs.13,05,000.00 13. Doc.No.2288/2021 dated 20.07.2021 – Rs.74,950.00 (Purchased in the name of petitioner's son viz., Mr.G.Sharath, aged about 20 years, DOB: 19.11.1999.) 14. Doc.No.4748/2020 dated 08.06.2020 – Rs.32,000.00 15. Doc.No.4653/2020 dated 08.06.2020 – Rs.63,000.00 16. Doc.No.4747/2020 dated 08.06.2020 – Rs.75,000.00 17. Doc.No.4826/2022 dated 22.10.2022 – Rs.18,80,463.00 (purchased in the petitioner's wife Smt.G.Sakkubai (PA.4) Further, the details of Bank Account in the name of petitioner and in the name of his wife were furnished: 10. It is submitted that as per the Income Tax returns from 2018 onwards, the amount disclosed by the petitioner was aboutRs.35,00,000/- whereas, petitioner has purchased properties worth Rs.95,00,000/- during the said period apart from cash balance of about Rs.4,00,000/-. It is further submitted that petitioner has no other source of earning and he is the only earning member of his family. It is further submitted that petitioner has no other source of earning and he is the only earning member of his family. During the investigation it was revealed that the petitioner qualifies as 'person' within the meaning of Section 68A(2)(e) r/w 68B(b)(ii) of NDPS Act for proceedings under Chapter VA of NDPS Act. The Investigating Officer, during the course of financial investigation, identified the above properties and traced it and believed that the said properties were acquired out of illicit trade of narcotic drugs and therefore attracts Section 68B(g) of NDPS Act. Based on the said findings, the Investigating Officer passed the order on 20.02.2024 freezing the above said properties. Thereafter, the competent authority issued notice on 23.02.2024 and granted permission for personal hearing on 04.03.2024 and afforded an opportunity of personal hearing, to file written submissions or reply. Accordingly, petitioner has filed reply on 11.03.2024 stating that since he was not arrested in the case, the provisions of Chapter VA of NDPS Act are not applicable to him and that he has also obtained anticipatory bail. 15 NVSK, J W.P.No.298 of 2025 11. It is further submitted that after perusing the material on record and considering the petitioner's reply, the competent authority passed impugned orders on 20.03.2024 confirming the freezing order dated 20.02.2024 passed by the respondent No.3. It is further submitted that though there is an appeal provision available under NDPS Act against the impugned order, the petitioner without availing the same, had approached this Court by way of this writ petition. 12. It is further submitted that on a perusal of the petitioner Bank Account viz., SBI, Shabad Branch bearing A/c.No.52182623577 would reveal that there were higher value of credits and petitioner also failed to answer as to the services rendered to the credits of A/c.No.32975182574. It is further submitted that the said transactions were coupled with the immovable properties worth about Rs.1 Crore book value acquired by the petitioner with a meager disclosed income of Rs.35,00,000/-. It is further submitted that the petitioner was involved in drug trafficking and that respondent No.2 has rightly exercised the powers conferred upon him under Section 68F(2) of NDPS Act. It is further submitted that on a perusal of C.No.535/2023 dated 27.09.2023 of Director of Prohibition andExcise, the existing value of Alprazolam is Rs.10,00,000/- per kg. It is further submitted that the petitioner was involved in drug trafficking and that respondent No.2 has rightly exercised the powers conferred upon him under Section 68F(2) of NDPS Act. It is further submitted that on a perusal of C.No.535/2023 dated 27.09.2023 of Director of Prohibition andExcise, the existing value of Alprazolam is Rs.10,00,000/- per kg. It is further submitted that 0.25 mg to 0.5 mg., Alprazolam is added to 1 bottle of Kalthi Kallu to make adulterated toddy. Each gram of Alprazolam is used to make around 2000 Adulterated Toddy bottles each of which is sold at Rs.20/- per bottle. Thus, each Rs.1000/- invested in Alprazolam results in return of Rs.40,000/- and not Rs.2,00,000/- as mentioned by the petitioner. It is further submitted that in the investigation, it is revealed that petitioner was running a toddy compound in Shadnagar and was procuring Alprazolam for that purpose and that the Investigating Officer has not only freezed the properties of the petitioner, his wife and his son but also properties of the other accused involved in the case who have illegally acquired properties in terms of Clause (g) of Section 68B of NDPS Act. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 confirmed the freezing order issued by the Investigating Officer and placed a temporary restraint on the accused person from concealing or transferring or dealing with the illegally acquired property, in any manner under Chapter V-A of NDPS Act. 13. It is further submitted that Respondent No.2 informed the Empowered Officer to keep track of the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner and in the event of conviction with imprisonment for a term of 10 years or more, immediately report such conviction to respondent No.2 Office for initiating further action for forfeiture of illegally acquired property under Section 68H of NDPS Act. With regard to Bank account statements, respondent No.2 stated that money deposits and transfer entries are found and therefore Investigating Officer may further examine the origin/destination of flow of money and investigate properties, if any, for legal action. It is further submitted that petitioner's wife and his son are non-earning members and petitioner did not state their source of income for purchasing immovable properties in their names. 14. It is further submitted that petitioner's wife and his son are non-earning members and petitioner did not state their source of income for purchasing immovable properties in their names. 14. It is further submitted that as per Section 68J of NDPS Act any property specified in the notice served under Section 68H is not illegally acquired property shall be on the person affected, as such, the onus is on the petitioner to prove that the said properties are not illegally acquired properties. That apart, the order of the competent authority i.e., respondent No.2 dated 20.03.2024 under the heading ‘reasons to believe' also recorded18NVSK, J W.P.No.298 of 2025 the fact PA.1 and PA.2 i.e., petitioner are habitual offenders who are involved in similar drug trafficking case in Cr.No.1386 of 2023 under Section 8(c), 29 of NDPS Act of Gachibowli Police Station and a charge sheet was filed vide S.C. No.148 of 2024 pending on the file of the I Additional District Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar. SUBMISSIONS OF PETITIONER: 15. Mr.Vedula Venkatrmana, learned senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the impugned order is appealable under Section 68(O) to the Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, the appellate remedy does not provide effective relief since the very confirmatory orders passed by respondent No.2 on the freezing order passed by respondent No.3 is patently illegal and without jurisdiction and not based on any justifiable reasons as such the availability of alternate remedy is not a bar for maintaining the writ petition as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks ¹. Learned senior counsel submits that petitioner is accused No.3/(PA.2) and that by virtue of freezing order, petitioner's Bank account, landed property were¹ 1998 (8) SCC 119 NVSK, J W.P.No.298 of 2025freezed and the petitioner is unable to draw money from the Bank. 16. Learned senior counsel would further submit that as per Section 68B(g) of NDPS Act, illegally acquired property means any property acquired wholly or partly out of or by means of any income, earnings or assets derived or obtained or attributable to the contravention of any provisions of NDPS Act and per Section 68E, there should be a process of identification of illegally acquired property by the Police Officer by duly recording reasons and conducting enquiry/investigation/survey. Section 68F(1) envisages that if the police officer conducting enquiry or investigation under Section 68E, has reason to believe that property in relation to which such enquiry or investigation is being conducted or transferred resulting in frustrating proceedings relating to forfeiture of property, an order for seizing the property/freezing the property can be passed which is to be confirmed by the competent authority within 30 days. Learned senior counsel would further submit that in the present case, the freezing order passed by the police officer of Shadnagar has not recorded any grounds for arriving that there is reason to believe that the movable and immovable properties are illegally20NVSK, J W.P.No.298 of 2025acquired from the income generated by the business of NDPS substances and they are likely to be concealed to avoid forfeiture under Section 68H of NDPS Act. He would further submit that all the movable and immovable properties were acquired long back prior to the two crimes viz., Shadnagar crime dated 25.12.2023 and Gachibowli Crime dated 12.12.2023 as such there is no basis to construe that the properties which were acquired from 2018 to 2023 are illegally acquired properties. As such the impugned proceedings are not in consonance with the mandatory provisions of law in terms of Section 68E and Section 68F of NDPS Act. Learned senior counsel would further submit there is no allegation of mixing alprazolam with toddy and sale of such toddy and derivation of income from such sale of adulterated toddy. Learned senior counsel further submits that the freezing of the accounts of the petitioner brings petitioner life to a virtual stand still. PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank and others 2 (2024) 6 SCC 57921NVSK, J W.P.No.298 of 2025there are certain exception to the rule of alternate remedy being a bar for maintaining the writ petition and would refer to paragraph 37 of the said judgment which reads as under: "(i) where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question; (ii) it has acted in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure; (iii) it has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed; and (iv) when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice." 18. Making further submissions, learned senior counsel would rely on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aslam Mohammad Merchan v. Competent authority 3 wherein it was held that when law is stringent, the procedure laid down by the has to be scrupulously followed. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment is extracted herein for the facility of reference: “Both the statutory elements, namely, ‘reason to believe' and 'recording of reasons' must be premised on the materials produced before him. Such materials must have been gathered during the investigation carried out in terms of Section 68-E or otherwise. Indisputably therefore, he must have some materials before him. If no such material had 3 (2008) 14 SCC 18622 NVSK, J W.P.No.298 of 2025been placed before him, he cannot initiate a proceeding. He cannot issue a show cause notice on his own ipse dixit. A roving enquiry is not contemplated under the said Act as properties sought to be forfeited must have a direct nexus with the properties illegally acquired. It is now a trite law that whenever a statute provides for ‘reason to believe', either the reasons should appear on the face of the notice or they must be available on the materials which had been placed before him....” SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL: 19. Mr.B.Narasimha Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 refuted the contentions of learned senior counsel for the petitioner and would refer to paragraph 6 of the order dated 20.03.2024 stating that, notices were issued giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and that via e-mail dated 10.03.2024 petitioner has filed written submissions which has been considered and no foundation was made in the grounds to the extent that the order of respondent No.2 is illegal. Learned Assistant Solicitor General would further submit that order of freezing dated 20.02.2024 has been communicated byEmpowered Officer i.e., respondent No.3 within 48 hours to competent authority i.e., respondent No.2 as per the time prescribed under Section 68(F) of NDPS Act and the competent authority is having jurisdiction under Section 68D of NDPS Act to proceed as per law and under provisions of Section 68H i.e., issuance of notice of forfeiture of property has been complied. Though respondent No.2 in his order informed petitioner that there is a provision of appeal on the Person Affected to the appellate tribunal within a period of 45 days, as such the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the appellate remedy does not provide effective remedy is without any basis. He would further draw attention of this Court to paragraph 5 of the order dated 20.03.2024, wherein in the 'Reasons to believe', it is noticed that the competent authority, on a reasonable belief, inferred that entire assets and properties of the petitioner were acquired out of the tainted income from narcotic drugs. Learned Assistant Solicitor General would further submit that there is no material to support that the petitioner has monetary source for buying the properties mentioned in the freezing order and as per provisions of Section 68J, the entire burden of proof lies on petitioner to prove that the specified properties were not illegally acquired property and24NVSK, J W.P.No.298 of 2025the same ratio is applicable in proceedings under Section 68F also whereby an opportunity was granted to the petitioner as a part of natural justice though there is no provision for granting such opportunity of making submissions or personal hearing. As such the orders passed by both the respondents are based on the mandate of law and is not an order under unjustifiable grounds. SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENT NO.3: 20. Learned Government Pleader for Home Sri Mahesh Raje appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 also filed synopsis would narrate the sequence of facts and proceedings and submits that on 25.12.2023, an FIR was registered in FIR No.894 of 2023 under Section 8(c) read with 22(c) and 29 of NDPS Act. That the Shadnagar Police, on reliable information, visited petitioner's house and apprehended PA.2 (A2) and PA.4 (A4) and seized two KGs of Alprazolam. He would further submit that petitioner is also involved in another FIR No.1386 of 2023 of Gachibowli Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, wherein (7) Seven KGs of Alprazolam powder as well as cash of Rs.19,00,000/- was seized from the possession. Accused No.3 i.e., the petitioner herein was granted with Anticipatory Bail vide Crl.P.No.218325 NVSK, J W.P.No.298 of 2025and 2186 of 2024 dated 28.02.2024 and furnished bail bonds on 02.03.2024. 21. Accused No.3 i.e., the petitioner herein was granted with Anticipatory Bail vide Crl.P.No.218325 NVSK, J W.P.No.298 of 2025and 2186 of 2024 dated 28.02.2024 and furnished bail bonds on 02.03.2024. 21. The learned Government Pleader for Home would submit that on 25.12.2023, LW.1 to LW.6 were examined and their statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Accused Nos.2 and 4 were arrested and produced before the jurisdictional Court and the learned Magistrate sent them to judicial custody. Accused No.1 arrest was regularized through PT warrant as he was already in judicial custody in connection with Cr.No.364/2023 of Medak Town Police Station, Shadnagar. On 20.02.2024, The Station House Officer, Shadnagar Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate proposed to respondent No.2 to freeze the illegally acquired assets and bank accounts of the petitioner and his family members under Section 68F(1) of NDPS Act. On 23.02.2024, respondent No.2 issued notices to A.2, A.3, A.7 and petitioner's wife, son and Smt.Neredi Saritha granting an opportunity of final hearing on 04.03.2024. 22. The petitioner submitted a reply on 11.03.2024 stating that since he was not arrested in the case, the provisions of Chapter VA of NDPS Act are not applicable to him. Thereafter, on 20.03.2024, respondent No.2 passed impugned order under26 NVSK, J W.P.No.298 of 2025Section 68F(2) of NDPS Act, 1985 confirming the freezing order dated 20.02.2024 passed by the Investigating Officer and stated that the impugned order is a temporary restraint order on the accused person from concealing or transferring or dealing with the illegally acquired property, in any manner under Chapter V- A of NDPS Act. Though Respondent No.2 in the impugned order stated that the accused has a right to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi within the stipulated period of 45 days, the petitioner without filing appeal and infact after a lapse of more than 9 months from the date of impugned order, filed the present writ petition. 23. Learned Government Pleader would further refer to the IT returns filed by the petitioner disclosing his income as stated supra. It is further concluded that the petitioner has no other source of income except selling Alprazolam and there is no earning member in the family. 23. Learned Government Pleader would further refer to the IT returns filed by the petitioner disclosing his income as stated supra. It is further concluded that the petitioner has no other source of income except selling Alprazolam and there is no earning member in the family. He would further submit that the Investigating Officer revealed that the petitioner qualifies as 'person' within the meaning of Section 68A(2)(e) read with 68B(b)(ii) of NDPS Act for proceedings under Chapter VA of NDPS Act and in the course of financial investigation carried out by him under Section 68(E) of NDPS Act identified the above27NVSK, J W.P.No.298 of 2025properties and traced in the name of the accused and his family members. 24. He would further submit that the value of properties vis-à-vis the quantity of drugs seized is irrelevant and what is crucial is “a reasonable belief” based on investigation that such properties are linked to drug trafficking activities. He would further submit that NDPS Act specifically empowers freezing without prior notice to prevent frustration of proceedings under Chapter VA. He would further submit that drug trafficking proceeds are often laundered into immovable and movable assets disproportionate to any single seizure and hence the scope of freezing is necessarily broader to identify the full extent of proceeds of crime. He would refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aslam Merchant v. Competent authority which is also relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the wide powers of freezing to ensure effective forfeiture. He would submit that the present matter is at nascent stage of investigation and any disclosure of detailed linkage between the properties and offenses at this stage may compromise ongoing efforts to identify other associates, financial trails and assets. He would furthercontend that petitioner had an alternate statutory remedy of appeal under Section 68-O of NDPS Act, which he has not exhausted. The Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property is a specialized body with competence to examine such freezing orders and direct invocation of writ jurisdiction bypassing statutory remedy is not warranted and the writ petition may be dismissed at the threshold. He would also submit that NDPS Act is a special statute enacted to prevent and control illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and its provisions including freezing of properties, are aimed at crippling financial network of traffickers. He would also submit that NDPS Act is a special statute enacted to prevent and control illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and its provisions including freezing of properties, are aimed at crippling financial network of traffickers. Interference with freezing order undermines public interest in preventing drug trafficking and weakens enforcement efforts. Eventually he would submit that since the investigation is at nascent stage, this Court need not interfere at this stage. 25. While making submissions, the learned Government Pleader for Home also placed a copy of the charge-sheet in FIR No.894/2023 dated 25.12.2023 filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., in the Court of the I Additional District Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar. The details have been filed with Inward No.904/2025 dated 07.03.2025.29 NVSK, J W.P.No.298 of 2025 26. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for respondent No.3. Perused the material placed on record. ANALYSIS: 27. The competent authority i.e., respondent No.2 in its order dated 20.03.2024, based on the report of the empowered officer, during the course of financial investigation under Section 68E of NDPS Act had verified certain movable and immovable properties traced in the name of petitioner and five others (i.e., P.A.1 to P.A.6) and the said properties were reasonably believed to have been acquired out of illicit trade of narcotic drugs and therefore deemed to be illegally acquired properties as defined under Section 68B(g) of NDPS Act. 28. It is to be noted that PA-2 is the petitioner, PA-4 is the wife of PA-2/petitioner, and PA-6 is the son of PA-2/petitioner. Based on the investigation, the empowered officer passed the freezing order under Section 68F(1) of NDPS Act directing that the said properties shall not be transferred or otherwise dealt without prior permission from the empowered officer or the competent authority. In the order, details of 19 immovable30 NVSK, J W.P.No.298 of 2025properties of the petitioner and his family along with movables were annexed. 29. Respondent No.2 in his 'reasons to believe' has submitted that petitioner along with G.Mallaiah (P.A.1) were habitual offenders who were involved in similar drug trafficking case in Cr.No.1386/2023 under Section 8(c) read with Section 22(c), 29 of NDPS Act on the file of Gachibowli Police Station. 29. Respondent No.2 in his 'reasons to believe' has submitted that petitioner along with G.Mallaiah (P.A.1) were habitual offenders who were involved in similar drug trafficking case in Cr.No.1386/2023 under Section 8(c) read with Section 22(c), 29 of NDPS Act on the file of Gachibowli Police Station. In the said order, it is further observed that on investigation of the empowered officer, it is found that P.A.4 is a house wife while P.A.6 is a student who had no income source to acquire the said immovable properties and thereby concluded that the properties held in the name of P.A.4 and P.A.6 are attributable to the income of P.A.2 (i.e., the petitioner herein). Thereafter, notice dated 23.02.2024 was issued to all the persons affected (PAs) through empowered officer and acknowledgments were taken on record by fixing the personal hearing on 04.03.2024. As regards, P.A.2, P.A.4 and P.A.6 are concerned, it was reported that they were absconding and hence the hearing notices were served by way of affixture. Thereafter, the petitioner, on request, was granted time till 11.03.2024 for submission of reply and the petitioner by way of e-mail dated 10.03.2024 submitted written31NVSK, J W.P.No.298 of 2025 Aslam Mohammad Merchant's 30. In the reply, the petitioner submitted that for his livelihood he is doing agriculture, real-estate business and also derives rental income and that he is never into the business of toddy and that apart from the alleged confessional statement there is no material to implicate him in the case and there is no recovery from him. 31. In the reply given by the petitioner, the petitioner referred to the orders passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.2186 of 2024 dated 28.02.2024 and also relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (reported in (2021) 4 SCC); Sharik Khan Vs. NCB (SLP (Crl.) Dairy No.48232/2023) dated 06.03.2024; Aslam Mohammad Merchant Vs. Competent Authority and other (reported in 2008) 14 SCC 186 and Order passed by this32NVSK, J W.P.No.298 of 2025Court in Crl.P. No.12925 of 2023 dated 03.01.2024, 10.01.2024 & 24.01.2024. 32. State of Tamil Nadu (reported in (2021) 4 SCC); Sharik Khan Vs. NCB (SLP (Crl.) Dairy No.48232/2023) dated 06.03.2024; Aslam Mohammad Merchant Vs. Competent Authority and other (reported in 2008) 14 SCC 186 and Order passed by this32NVSK, J W.P.No.298 of 2025Court in Crl.P. No.12925 of 2023 dated 03.01.2024, 10.01.2024 & 24.01.2024. 32. In the discussions and the findings of the respondent No.2 in his order dated 20.03.2024, it is noted from the statements of PA-1 given before the Investigating Officer that the PA-2/petitioner played a role in the commission of the offence and drug trafficking, which would render him as an associate of PA-1. 33. In the findings of the order of the respondent No.2 dated 20.03.2024, as far as the contention of the nexus between the impugner property and the income of PA is concerned, respondent No.2 referred to the explanation inserted by NDPS (Amdt.) Act, 2014 dated 30.04.2014 below Sec.68H, which is relevant: “[Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that in a case where the provisions of Section 68J are applicable, no notice under this section shall be invalid merely on the ground that it fails to mention the evidence relied upon or it fails to establish a direct nexus between the property sought to be forfeited and any activity in contravention of the provisions of this Act.]. 33NVSK, J W.P.No.298 of 2025 34. Further, respondent No.2 also relied upon the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aslam Mohammad (supra), which reads as under: “44. We are not unmindful of the purport and object of the Act. Dealing in narcotics is a social evil that must be curtailed or prohibited at any cost. Chapter VA seeks to achieve a salutary purpose. But, it must also be borne in mind that right to hold property although no longer a fundamental right is still a constitutional right. It is a human right. The provisions of the Act must be interpreted in a manner so that its constitutionality is upheld. The validity of the provisions might have received constitutional protection, but when stringent laws become applicable as a result whereof some persons are to be deprived of his/her right in a property, scrupulous compliance of the statutory requirements is imperative.” 35. The provisions of the Act must be interpreted in a manner so that its constitutionality is upheld. The validity of the provisions might have received constitutional protection, but when stringent laws become applicable as a result whereof some persons are to be deprived of his/her right in a property, scrupulous compliance of the statutory requirements is imperative.” 35. In the said order dated 20.03.2024, it is also noted that as per Section 68J of NDPS Act, the burden of proving that any property specified in the notice served under Section 68H is not illegally acquired property shall be on the person affected and same ratio is applicable in proceedings under Section 68F also where the opportunity is granted as a part of natural justice. The34 NVSK, J W.P.No.298 of 2025petitioner was granted with maximum possible opportunities and sufficient time to submit his reply and relevant documents to prove that the frozen movable and immovable properties were not acquired out of income derived from illicit trade of drugs and thereafter, order under Section 68F(2) following an order under Section 68F(1) has to be passed within a period of 30 days. Therefore, the competent authority had proceeded to decide the case on the basis of records and documents available on file. Respondent No.2, on a careful perusal of material placed on record believed that the properties acquired by the PAs are attributable to their income, earnings or assets derived from the sale proceeds of narcotic drugs. 36. After going through the investigation carried out by the empowered officer and also on the basis of the materials on record, the Competent Authority was satisfied that the movable and immovable properties are 'illegally acquired properties' in terms of clause (g) of Section 68B of NDPS Act and the same are likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with in a manner which will result in frustrating the proceedings under Chapter VA of NDPS Act and thereby confirmed the freezing order dated 20.02.2024 passed by the empowered officer i.e., respondent35NVSK, J W.P.No.298 of 2025No.3. The order of competent authority places a temporary restraint on the persons affected (PAs), from concealing or transferring the said properties, in a manner, under Chapter VA of NDPS Act. The order of competent authority places a temporary restraint on the persons affected (PAs), from concealing or transferring the said properties, in a manner, under Chapter VA of NDPS Act. The Empowered Officer was directed to keep track of the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner and in the event of conviction with imprisonment for a term of 10 years or more, immediately report such conviction to respondent No.2 Office for initiating further action for forfeiture of illegally acquired property under Section 68H of NDPS Act. On the other hand, if the person affected is acquitted and no appeal is preferred against the acquittal, the empowered officer, may seek release of the restraint on the illegally acquired property under Section 68Z of NDPS Act. The Investigating Officer was directed to further examine the origin/destination of flow of money and investigate properties, if any, for legal action. Accordingly, the competent authority confirmed the freezing order. 37. Learned Government Pleader for respondent No.3 has placed a copy of FIR No.894/2023 dated 25.12.2023 registered under Sections 22(c) and 29 of NDPS Act. As per Section 68J of NDPS Act, the burden of proving that any property specified in the notice served under Section 68H is not illegally acquired36 NVSK, J W.P.No.298 of 2025property shall be on the person affected. Respondent No.3, in the counter affidavit, referred to the details of Income Tax returns filed by the petitioner during the last 6 assessment years and also furnished the details of statements of encumbrances on properties purchased by the petitioner and his son and also in the name of his wife. In the counter, the details of the Bank account operated by the petitioner and his wife and by verifying details of Income Tax returns from 2018 onwards wherein an income of Rs.35,00,000/- was disclosed and the petitioner has purchased the properties worth Rs.95,00,000/-. The Investigating Officer further has filed the details of several higher value credits during the last 6 years and stated that the petitioner has not given any answer as to the source rendered for those credits. CONCLUSION: 38. As observed by respondent No.2, petitioner appears to be habitual offender involved in drug trafficking case. The Investigating Officer further has filed the details of several higher value credits during the last 6 years and stated that the petitioner has not given any answer as to the source rendered for those credits. CONCLUSION: 38. As observed by respondent No.2, petitioner appears to be habitual offender involved in drug trafficking case. As far as petitioner and family members purchasing properties prior to crime and whether petitioner was also involved in earlier such crimes and such properties have any nexus to income derived from drug trafficking is to be established by a progressive andmeaningful investigation and by leading proper evidence which cannot be decided on affidavits at this juncture. The petitioner as against the impugned order dated 20.03.2025 had an ample opportunity to pursue the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, however, has not chosen for his own reasons. On a perusal of the confirmatory order passed by respondent No.2, it is based on “reasons to believe", the respondent No.2 on a careful analysis of Income Tax returns of petitioner, observed that petitioner/PA.2 did not report any immovable property in the ITRs filed during the assessment years relevant to the financial years in which the said immovable properties were acquired. It appears that petitioner/PA.2 has returned business income to the Income Tax Department. However, neither any document nor any mention of nature of business has been made in the reply of the petitioner. Similarly, the petitioner failed to provide details of his real estate business and corresponding linking credits in his bank account or investment in the immovable properties. Respondent No.2 further observed that the sale consideration was in cash, while in some cases the mode of transaction is missing from the face of such records. It is further observed that PA.4 (wife of the petitioner) has neither filed any reply nor appeared for any personal hearing, inspite ofnotice being served on her through affixtures as per the provisions of Section 68X of the NDPS Act. As such respondent No.2 held that properties held in the name of PA.4 were acquired out of income derived from illicit trade of narcotic drugs. Similar observation was made in the case of PA.6 (son of petitioner) who is a student and in all the sale deeds PA.6 was shown as student and sale consideration was paid in cash. As such respondent No.2 held that properties held in the name of PA.4 were acquired out of income derived from illicit trade of narcotic drugs. Similar observation was made in the case of PA.6 (son of petitioner) who is a student and in all the sale deeds PA.6 was shown as student and sale consideration was paid in cash. PA.6 has not filed any income tax return and there was no submission of the petitioner representing his son, who seems to be unavailable for hearing. 39. The Psychotropic Substance Alprazolam is included in the Schedule (Clause (xxiii) of Section 2) in the list of Phychotropic Substances. 40. For better appreciation, Section 68J of the Narcotic Drugs and Phychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is extracted hereunder: “68J. Burden of Proof .- In any proceedings under this Chapter, the burden of proving that any property specified in the notice served under section 68H is not illegally acquired property shall be on the person affected." 39NVSK, J W.P.No.298 of 2025 41. As per Section 68J of NDPS Act, the burden of proving that any property specified in the notice served under Section 68H is not illegally acquired property lies on the petitioner, the petitioner failed to prove that the said properties are legally acquired properties. It is also to be noted that petitioner had not made any serious attempt to discharge his burden of proof and explain his source of income. As such the onus is on the petitioner to prove that the said properties were not acquired illegally. It is to be noted that petitioner has not filed any reply affidavit to the counter affidavit and is silent on this issue. 42. The impugned order only confirms the freezing order and is not a final order and only places a temporary restraint from concealing or transferring or dealing with the illegally acquired property, in any manner under Chapter VA of NDPS Act. 43. Though the freezing order was passed on the basis of FIR No.894/2023, as per submissions of learned Government Pleader for Home, the petitioner was also involved in FIR No.1386/2023 on the file of Gachibowli Police Station and a charge sheet was filed pending on the file of the I Additional District Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar. 43. Though the freezing order was passed on the basis of FIR No.894/2023, as per submissions of learned Government Pleader for Home, the petitioner was also involved in FIR No.1386/2023 on the file of Gachibowli Police Station and a charge sheet was filed pending on the file of the I Additional District Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar. In the charge40 NVSK, J W.P.No.298 of 2025sheet dated 16.08.2024 filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., it is submitted that petitioner is Accused No.7 in FIR No.1386/2023. That apart for the present case, the petitioner has also bypassed the alternative remedy available under Section 68(O) of NDPS Act and did not demonstrate compelling reasons as to why the existing process is inadequate or would cause significant injustice. Since the Charge Sheets are already filed in Cr.No.1386/2023 dated 12.12.2023 and in the present crime in Cr.No.894/2023 dated 25.12.2023 pending on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar by respondent No.3, petitioner has a remedy to prove his bona fides before the said Court. 44. It is to be noted that the confirmatory order dated 20.03.2024 is not based on isolated incident as the petitioner was also involved in both the crimes i.e. Cr.No.1386/2023 dated 12.12.2023 and in the present crime in Cr.No.894/2023 dated 25.12.2023, which occurred within a short time span. As such conclusions arrived at by respondent No.2 in freezing order dated 20.02.2024 is well founded. The petitioner in the entire affidavit has no where stated the nature of his business and how the said properties in the freezing order have been acquired. In41 NVSK, J W.P.No.298 of 2025the absence of same, there is no reason to interfere with the freezing order. It is to be further noted that though there is a statutory appeal available under Section 68(0) of NDPS Act, wherein the Appellate Tribunal for forfeited property is a specialized body with competence to examine such freezing orders, the petitioner without subjecting himself for such examination under a competent body is not entitled to approach this Court by directly invoking Article 226 of Constitution of India without exhausting such statutory remedy. The petitioner, if at all, wants to canvass the points discussed hereinabove, the same ought to have submitted before the Appellate forum. On this ground also, the writ petition is not maintainable. The petitioner, if at all, wants to canvass the points discussed hereinabove, the same ought to have submitted before the Appellate forum. On this ground also, the writ petition is not maintainable. There is nothing and no material has been filed to prove that the said properties were acquired by legal means. The Apex Court in Aslam Mohammed (supra) at paragraph 54 of the said judgment held that once show cause notice is found to be illegal, the same would vitiate all subsequent proceedings whereas in the present case, in the written instructions submitted by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Shadnagar Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, dated 06.01.2025 which has been placed before this Court by the learned Government Pleader for Home, a copy of the intimation of personal hearing dated 23.02.2024(through video conference) on 04.03.2024 @ 12.00 Noon under Section 68F of the NDPS Act, 1985, before the Competent Authority (SAFEM (FOP) A & NDPSA) Chennai, was intimated to the petitioner in which details of movable and immovable properties of PA-1 to PA-6 were mentioned. The petitioner has also submitted a detailed reply on 11.03.2023. Thereafter, respondent No.3 has passed freezing order on 20.02.2024 under Section 68F(1) read with Section 68E of Chapter V-A of the Act, 1985 and respondent No.2 confirmed the said freezing order on 20.03.2024 under 68F(2) of the Act. The respondents have followed the provisions of the NDPS Act, 1985. 45. It is further noted that as per the record and submissions made by respondents, it is revealed that notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 68H and respondent No.2 has confirmed the freezing order within 30 days. As such, the said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied by the petitioner does not support the petitioner's case and on the basis of material placed, this Court is of the considered opinion that statutory conditions prescribed under the Act stands satisfied and the burden is on the petitioner to show his source for the acquisition of the said properties and prove that they are not43 NVSK, J W.P.No.298 of 2025illegally acquired properties. Respondent authorities have identified the properties and also observed that the cash/bank deposits were not properly explained by the petitioner. Petitioner did not disclose the proof of agriculture income. Respondent No.2 has given sound reasons in support of his belief. Respondent authorities have identified the properties and also observed that the cash/bank deposits were not properly explained by the petitioner. Petitioner did not disclose the proof of agriculture income. Respondent No.2 has given sound reasons in support of his belief. As such the statutory elements namely, reasons to believe and recording of reasons are well founded. 46. In view of all the observations made above and also taking into consideration the above judicial pronouncements, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 20.03.2024 passed by the competent authority i.e., respondent No.2 and the relief sought in the writ petition cannot be granted and writ petition fails. 47. This Court is of the opinion that freezing of the petitioner's bank accounts infringes petitioner and his family members right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India and in the interest of justice, considering the bona fide requirements of the petitioner and his family members, this Court grants limited/conditional access to the frozen accounts of the petitioner mentioned in the order dated 20.02.2024 and as confirmed by respondent No.2 in the order44 NVSK, J W.P.No.298 of 2025dated 20.03.2024, subject to petitioner providing proof of legal income credits and also on the grounds of urgent relief however, subject to Trial Court/Competent Court permission while dealing with forthcoming credits. The petitioner may file an application before the Trial Court/Competent Court seeking for withdrawal of such legal proceeds credited in the petitioner's frozen account for his legitimate livelihood and for the medical expenses of his family. 48. It is made clear that this order is only confined to the observations made in confirmation order dated 20.03.2024 passed by the respondent No.2 and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and the competent Authority or Trial Court may proceed independently in accordance to law uninfluenced by the findings of this Court. 49. It is made clear that this order is only confined to the observations made in confirmation order dated 20.03.2024 passed by the respondent No.2 and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and the competent Authority or Trial Court may proceed independently in accordance to law uninfluenced by the findings of this Court. 49. In the result:a) the impugned order dated 20.03.2024 passed by respondent No.2 warrants no interference and the writ petition stands dismissed to that extent; and45NVSK, J W.P.No.298 of 2025b) however, if the petitioner makes any application for meeting his family necessities and for their livelihood and to meet medical expenses, if any, on the forthcoming credits into the Bank Accounts frozen as per order dated 20.02.2024 and as confirmed by order dated 20.03.2024, the Competent Court/Trial Court may consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance to law. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Date: 21.04.2025Note: L.R. copy be marked. B/o. Mrm/LSK JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR