Writ petition against Enforcement Directorate attachment order dismissed for lack of legal standing

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Enforcement Directorate's attachment order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The court held that the petitioners lacked legal standing as registered purchasers of the property and advised them to seek appropriate forums for implementing the Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority's order revoking the project's registration. The court found that the Enforcement Directorate's attachment did not interfere with the RERA order aimed at protecting the interests of the petitioners. As a result, the writ petition and all pending applications were dismissed.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to Impugned Order by Enforcement Directorate after RERA Order

Analysis:
The petitioners sought relief against the Impugned Order dated 25.06.2021 passed by the Enforcement Directorate following a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA, 2002) against the builders of a residential project. The petitioners argued that the Enforcement Directorate's order contradicted the order of the Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) revoking the project's registration. The RERA order included detailed directions, such as revoking the project's registration, terminating the development agreement, and imposing conditions for project completion. The RERA order also addressed the role of the Enforcement Directorate in the project's financial matters.

The petitioners contended that the Enforcement Directorate's attachment order under the PMLA, 2002 was not valid as it conflicted with the RERA order. The court examined the provisions of the PMLA, 2002 related to property attachment and the rights of interested parties. It was noted that interested parties could enjoy attached property but had limited rights to challenge the attachment. The court emphasized that interested parties could not challenge the attachment order as it could lead to misuse by the accused in money laundering cases.

The court found that the petitioners, as members of the petitioner-association, did not have legal standing as registered purchasers of the property. However, the RERA order aimed to protect their interests, and the Enforcement Directorate's attachment did not interfere with the RERA order. The court held that the petition was not maintainable against the Enforcement Directorate's attachment order and advised the petitioners to seek appropriate forums for implementing the RERA order. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and all pending applications were also dismissed.

---