Himachal Pradesh Chief Minister and Congress leader Virbhadra Singh. (PTI file photo)
New Delhi:
The Enforcement Directorate today sought dismissal of a plea by Himachal Pradesh Chief Minister Virbhadra Singh's two children from Delhi High Court challenging the provisional attachment order of some of their assets in connection with a money laundering case.
"The present petition is not tenable at this crucial stage of investigation," a bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath was informed by ED Joint Director in an affidavit.
The ED's response came in the backdrop of the court's April 6 notice issued to it on a plea filed by Mr Virbhadra's daughter Aparajita Kumari and son Vikramaditya Singh, who have also sought stay on the March 23 provisional attachment order (PAO) of ED, saying it has "exceeded its jurisdiction".
Opposing the plea, the ED in its affidavit, filed through central government standing counsel Amit Mahajan said the "purpose of attachment under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 needs to be seen. All attached properties have been found to be prima-facie involved in the offence of the Money Laundering."
The agency said the petitioners can raise these issues before the adjudicating authority and if the authority is satisfied that attachment was not warranted, it can set aside the order of provisional attachment.
"Even before the proceedings have been initiated and concluded by Adjudicating Authority, the petitioners have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this court...As such, the present petition is entirely premature and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone," it added.
The court has listed the matter for hearing tomorrow.
The petitioners have also challenged the recently amended second proviso of section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), claiming it should be declared unconstitutional as it was contradictory to the scheme of the Act and violated the Constitution.
The second proviso of section 5(1) of PMLA provides that any property of a person may be attached if ED's concerned officer has reasons to believe, on the basis of material in his possession, that if such property allegedly involved in money-laundering is not attached immediately, it is likely to frustrate any proceeding under the Act.
"The present petition is not tenable at this crucial stage of investigation," a bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath was informed by ED Joint Director in an affidavit.
The ED's response came in the backdrop of the court's April 6 notice issued to it on a plea filed by Mr Virbhadra's daughter Aparajita Kumari and son Vikramaditya Singh, who have also sought stay on the March 23 provisional attachment order (PAO) of ED, saying it has "exceeded its jurisdiction".
Opposing the plea, the ED in its affidavit, filed through central government standing counsel Amit Mahajan said the "purpose of attachment under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 needs to be seen. All attached properties have been found to be prima-facie involved in the offence of the Money Laundering."
The agency said the petitioners can raise these issues before the adjudicating authority and if the authority is satisfied that attachment was not warranted, it can set aside the order of provisional attachment.
"Even before the proceedings have been initiated and concluded by Adjudicating Authority, the petitioners have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this court...As such, the present petition is entirely premature and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone," it added.
The court has listed the matter for hearing tomorrow.
The petitioners have also challenged the recently amended second proviso of section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), claiming it should be declared unconstitutional as it was contradictory to the scheme of the Act and violated the Constitution.
The second proviso of section 5(1) of PMLA provides that any property of a person may be attached if ED's concerned officer has reasons to believe, on the basis of material in his possession, that if such property allegedly involved in money-laundering is not attached immediately, it is likely to frustrate any proceeding under the Act.
Track Latest News Live on NDTV.com and get news updates from India and around the world
