In a recent ruling, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court upheld the eviction order of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the Arms License Scam.
Earlier this year, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) Jammu had attached 16 properties of various arms dealers and senior bureaucrats of J&K worth ₹4.69 crores in the fake arms license case being investigated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Court dismissed a plea of Syed Akeel Shah, who had challenged the eviction notice issued by the Directorate of Enforcement on September 23, 2022, under Section 8(4) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.
The petitioner challenged the notice on the ground that the order of attachment of his property confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 8(3) of the Act of 2002 was appealable before the Appellate Tribunal within a period of forty-five days from the date on which a copy of the attachment was received by an aggrieved person.
The Counsel for the appellant through his Counsel brought to the notice of the Court that the eviction notice provides only ten days’ time for the petitioner to vacate the subject property, and in case the eviction notice is given effect before the petitioner is in a position to avail the remedy of appeal, the appeal under section 26 of the Act of 2002, even if preferred within limitation, would be rendered otiose.
T.M.Shamsi, Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing for the ED, submitted that Section 8(4) of the Act of 2002 clearly provides that the owner or occupier of the attached property can be evicted forthwith after the order of attachment is confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 8(3) of the Act of 2002.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar, dismissed the petition stating that “One may not come across any legislation where the effect and operation of decree, judgment or order are deferred till the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for filing appeal or revision against the such decree, order or judgment, as the case may be. It is not required to resort to the principles of statutory interpretation to construe and understand the otherwise plain, clear, and unambiguous provisions of Section 8 of the Act of 2002 and Rule 5(2) of the Rules of 2013 whatever be the difficulty and whatever be the consequences.”
The bench noted that in some circumstances or in a given case, ten days’ time available to the aggrieved person to approach the Appellate Tribunal by way of an appeal may seem to be a bit short of reasonable time, “yet this Court cannot in the disguise of interpretative process substitute “ten days” time given under Rules 5(2) of the Rules of 2013 and the expression “forthwith” used in Section 8(4) of the Act of 2002 by “forty-five days” or fifty-five days.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to TaxscanPremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
