The advocate for the petitioner has contended that the communication produced on page-105 dated 21/7/2011 issued by the Assistant Director, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, is without any authority and undue process, not warranted or authorized under the provision of Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002. There exist no power under the provision of Money Laundering Act 2002 to chase the property which is auctioned under the direction of The Secularization & Reconstruction of Financial Asset and Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002. Hence notice for final disposal, returnable on 14/2/2012.
It is expected of the respondents, especially respondent no.2 to file affidavit justifying issuance of such direction, as, otherwise, it would be presumed that there exist no justification for issuing such a direction. The justification should be by way of appropriate affidavit to be filed by the Assistant Director himself and rest of the respondents, especially respondent no.3, shall also file affidavit along with appropriate document justifying his stand of obeying the orders issued by the Assistant Director, as respondent no.3 - Jt. Sub Registrar is expected of vigilant in discharging his duties. Atleast these two affidavits-in-reply shall be placed on record by the returnable date, failing which, as it is stated herein above the Court will be constrained to observe that there exist no justification for issuing such a direction and the petition would be allowed.
Direct service permitted qua respondent nos. 2 to 7.
[ S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J ] /vgn Top