Enforcement Directorate's eviction orders under PMLA upheld; Court dismisses writ petitions challenging legality.

The court upheld the legality of eviction orders issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA, 2002), dismissing the writ petitions challenging the orders. It found that unregistered lease agreements were not valid to confer rights and affirmed the ED's jurisdiction and actions as per statutory provisions. The court directed petitioners to seek remedies under the PMLA, 2002, rather than through Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of eviction orders under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA, 2002).
2. Validity of unregistered lease agreements.
3. Jurisdiction and powers of the Enforcement Directorate under the PMLA, 2002.
4. Applicability of Article 226 of the Constitution of India for relief.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Eviction Orders under PMLA, 2002:
The petitioners challenged the eviction orders issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) as illegal and violative of the PMLA, 2002. They argued that their possession was protected under lease agreements made before the provisional attachment orders. However, the court noted that the properties were attached under Section 5 of the PMLA, 2002, and the attachment was confirmed by the adjudicating authority under Section 8(4). The court emphasized that the PMLA, 2002 aims to prevent money-laundering and confiscate properties derived from such activities. The eviction orders were found to be legal and in accordance with the provisions of the PMLA, 2002.

2. Validity of Unregistered Lease Agreements:
The petitioners relied on unregistered lease agreements to claim possession of the properties. The court observed that these agreements were not registered and lacked legal standing. The lease agreements were executed after the initiation of investigations and provisional attachment orders, raising doubts about their authenticity. The court held that unregistered lease agreements could not confer any enforceable rights to the petitioners, especially when the properties were involved in money-laundering activities.

3. Jurisdiction and Powers of the Enforcement Directorate under PMLA, 2002:
The ED's actions were challenged on the grounds of jurisdiction and the manner of exercising its powers. The court referred to the scheme and objectives of the PMLA, 2002, which empowers the ED to attach and confiscate properties involved in money-laundering. The court noted that the ED followed the due process under Sections 5 and 8 of the PMLA, 2002, including provisional attachment, confirmation by the adjudicating authority, and taking possession of the properties. The court upheld the ED's jurisdiction and actions as being in line with the statutory provisions.

4. Applicability of Article 226 of the Constitution of India for Relief:
The petitioners sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the eviction orders. The court highlighted that the PMLA, 2002 provides a comprehensive mechanism for addressing grievances, including appeals under Section 42. The court emphasized that entertaining the writ petitions would amount to parallel adjudication, undermining the statutory process under the PMLA, 2002. The court held that the petitioners should pursue the remedies available under the PMLA, 2002, and dismissed the writ petitions.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the legality of the eviction orders issued by the ED under the PMLA, 2002. The court found that the unregistered lease agreements relied upon by the petitioners did not confer any enforceable rights. The ED's actions were in accordance with the statutory provisions, and the petitioners were directed to seek remedies under the PMLA, 2002 instead of invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

---