Appeal on coal smuggling, illegal excavation and PMLA proceedings listed for further hearing without merits decision yet

SC considered an appeal arising from allegations of smuggling, illegal excavation and theft of coal from leasehold areas of a public sector coal company, involving proceedings under the PMLA. The HC had emphasized the autonomous and overriding nature of the PMLA investigative regime and held that its provisions must be allowed to operate fully and independently. The SC did not adjudicate the merits or disturb the HC's reasoning at this stage and directed that the matter be listed for further consideration on 19.07.2022.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether, pending final disposal of the special leave petitions, the effect and operation of the impugned judgment and order should be stayed and interim directions issued regulating the Directorate of Enforcement's interrogation of the petitioners.

1.2 Whether, in the connected matter, interim protection against coercive steps should be granted to respondent no.1 and the effect and operation of the impugned judgment and order stayed.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Interim stay of impugned judgment and regulation of interrogation by the Directorate of Enforcement

Interpretation and reasoning

2.1 The Court noted that the issues involved in the present matter are also pending consideration in another set of special leave petitions and therefore directed that both matters be placed before the appropriate Bench for hearing together.

2.2 Pending such consideration, the Court considered it necessary to preserve the status quo and ensure effective functioning of the Directorate of Enforcement while addressing apprehensions of interference or obstruction in interrogation or examination of the petitioners.

2.3 The Court recorded detailed assurances by counsel for the State that complete assistance would be rendered by the State machinery, that apprehensions of interference or obstruction were misplaced, and that no coercive action of any kind would be initiated by the Police or State machinery against officials concerned without leave of the Court.

2.4 Relying on these assurances, the Court structured the interim arrangement to balance the Directorate's investigative requirements with the need to protect officials from coercive action linked to their official acts, and to maintain the authority of the Court through liberty to approach the Vacation Bench in case of any obstruction or difficulty.

Conclusions

2.5 The Court directed that the Directorate of Enforcement may require the attendance of the petitioners at its Kolkata office by giving at least 24 hours' notice.

2.6 Simultaneously, notices are to be issued to the Commissioner of Police, Kolkata and the Chief Secretary of the State to ensure adequate police protection to the officials seeking to examine or interrogate the petitioners.

2.7 Subject to these directions, the effect and operation of the impugned judgment and order is stayed.

2.8 The Directorate of Enforcement is given liberty to approach the Vacation Bench if there is any difficulty, obstruction, or interference in the interrogation or examination process.

2.9 It is recorded that, as assured by the State, no coercive action of any kind shall be initiated by the Police or State machinery, in relation to any earlier or future complaint against such officials, without taking leave of the Court; the State is also given liberty to approach the Vacation Bench in that regard.

Issue 2: Interim protection and stay in the connected special leave petition

Interpretation and reasoning

2.10 In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the connected matter, the Court considered that interim protection was warranted to prevent coercive action against respondent no.1 while the matter remained pending.

2.11 For consistency and coordinated adjudication, the Court directed that this connected matter be listed along with the earlier noted special leave petitions.

Conclusions

2.12 The Court granted interim relief directing that no coercive steps shall be taken against respondent no.1.

2.13 Subject to this direction, the effect and operation of the impugned judgment and order is stayed.

2.14 The matter is directed to be listed for further consideration on the specified date along with the related special leave petitions.

---