By TIOL News Service

CHENNAI, FEB 05, 2017: THESE are batch of Writ Petitions filed before the High Court against investigations by the Enforcement Directorate in relation to money laundering involving 2G spectrum. The respondent department raised a preliminary objection on maintainability of the Petitions before the High Court in view of the case being monitored by the Supreme Court.

The Petitioners contended inter alia that, the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is enormous and when the fundamental rights of the persons affected, the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain and alleviate the grievance of the petitioner. Already, CBI has issued notice to Advantage Strategic Consulting Private Limited relating to receipt of Rs.26,00,444, but has not registered any complaint or charge sheet for a predicate offence. It is also stated that the respondents have failed to show any connection between the alleged underlying scheduled offence and the proceeds of crime generated therefrom on the one hand and the petitioner. According to the petitioner, there is no mention as to how the petitioner is connected with the commission of offence even assuming it is an offence related to 2G spectrum case. The petitioner is neither a Director nor a shareholder of M/s. Advantage Strategic Consulting Private Limited. Therefore, according to the petitioner, it is strange that an FIPB approval granted during March 2006 could be connected to the order of transfer and re-transfer of shares during March/October 2011. In fact, CBI has not filed a complaint or charge sheet in respect of FIPB approval, and hence, there is no predicate/scheduled offence made. In the absence of a predicate/scheduled offence, the enforcement directorate would have no jurisdiction to investigate any aspect of the FIPB approval or rely upon the order dated 10.02.2011 of the Supreme Court of India.

After hearing the parties, the High Court held:

+ As the investigation carried on by the respondents is being monitored by the Honourable Supreme Court and the Honourable Supreme Court is seized of with such investigation, this Court cannot entertain these writ petitions. No doubt, this Court has got power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to alleviate the grievance of the public at large when it is complained that their fundamental rights are infringed. However, as far as this case is concerned, when the jurisdiction of this Court has been ousted by an express order passed by the Honourable Supreme Court, this Court cannot pass any orders in these writ petitions thereby directly or indirectly impeding the investigation carried on by the respondents.

+ The investigation presently carried on by the respondents is seized of by the Honourable Supreme Court and the progress of such investigation is being periodically monitored by it. The Special Court constituted to deal with 2G Spectrum case or Aircel Maxis case has granted permission to carry out further investigation which would empower the respondent to file supplementary charge sheet as contemplated under Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain these writ petitions and the writ petitions only deserve to be dismissed.

+ Since the investigation carried on by the respondents is being monitored by the Honourable Supreme Court, it is too early for this Court to take up these writ petitions for adjudication on merits. Consequently, the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents is sustained. The writ petitions are dismissed as they are not maintainable before this Court. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

(See 2017-TIOL-232-HC-MAD-PMLA)