Freezing order challenge was not maintainable where the petition attacked only a bank communication, not the operative restraint.

A writ petition confined to a bank communication directing stoppage of outgoing transactions was held misconceived because the operative freezing order was passed later by the investigating officer and then forwarded for confirmation under the NDPS Act. The challenge did not assail that operative order, so the petition was not maintainable and was dismissed. The Court also noted that the interim restraint had prevented the competent authority from completing the statutory confirmation exercise, and extended the time for that process to be completed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging only the bank communication dated 22.05.2019 was maintainable when the operative freezing order was passed later on 30.10.2019 and sent for confirmation under Section 68F(2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

Analysis: The relief sought was directed against a communication that merely required stoppage of outgoing transactions and not against the subsequent freezing order actually passed by the investigating officer. The later freezing order had already been sent to the competent authority for confirmation within the statutory time-frame. Since the petition did not assail the operative freezing order, the challenge was found to be misconceived. The Court also noted that the interim restraint had prevented the competent authority from completing the statutory confirmation process, and time had to be made available for that purpose.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and stood dismissed. The time for the competent authority to complete proceedings under Section 68F(2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act was extended.

---