The Punjab and Haryana High Court will on Wednesday hear a petition filed by the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) and the State of Punjab challenging the Enforcement Directorate’s survey and search at PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, Mohali, from September 22 to 24.
The petition, filed against the Union of India, the Directorate of Enforcement and other respondents, has been placed before a Division Bench of Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor. It is scheduled to come up in the ‘urgent list’.
The petitioners have alleged that the operation continued for about 50 hours, during which floors of the premises were sealed, more than 30 bags of records were taken away and mobile phones and other electronic devices of senior officers were copied or cloned. They have also alleged that the Principal Secretary and other senior officers remained on the premises for two nights.
The petitioners contend that the investigation was stated to have been initiated on the basis of a CBI FIR relating to an alleged Rs 238-crore bank fraud “involving promoters of Tirupati Infra Projects Pvt Ltd, where funds were siphoned off for personal benefits” but neither the petitioners nor any of its officers was an accused in that FIR.
The petitioners have sought the complete records relating to the survey and search, including the authorisations and reasons recorded for the action. They have also sought quashing of the survey and search authorisations, return of their records and electronic devices, and directions restraining the ED from accessing or using data copied from the devices.
“The headquarters and offices of the Petitioners were occupied for about 50 hours, their floors sealed, their records carried away in more than 30 bags, their computers and the devices of their officers copied and cloned, and their senior officers kept in their offices night after night without any basis,” the petition said.
It was added that the respondents abused their power and held the officers in custody without the authority of law. “The officers of the respondents responsible for such acts have made themselves liable to action under Section 62 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) for vexatious search and detention”.
The petitioners further added that the survey and search conducted by the respondents was “illegal and contrary to the mandate of law as no connection whatsoever can be established between the petitioners and the wrongdoings”.
They have argued that even if any transaction recorded in the files of the petitioners had a bearing on the investigation, the course prescribed by law was to call for those records. There was no justification in law for conducting the survey and search, they have contended.
