S. Chandrashekhar, J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by M/s Highstreet Enterprises (P) Limited for a direction upon the respondents to release the property admeasuring about 10 Kathas comprised within Khata No. 360 of Khewat No. 15 in RS Plot No. 1133 (Sub Plot No. 1133/A) at Misirgonda, Kanke Road, (PS No. 191) within the district of Ranchi.

2. Briefly stated, ECIR No. ECIR/RSZO/01/2015 was registered by the ED on 30th January 2015. Before that, on an allegation that the accused persons had secured allotment of a coal-block the CBI had registered RC/221/2014/E/0015 on 23rd July 2014 under sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. After the investigation, the CBI has submitted charge-sheet against M/s Domco Pvt. Ltd. and its Directors on 22nd December 2015. The petitioner-company has produced a document at page 81 of the supplementary affidavit which records name of the Directors of the petitioner-company. In the complaint filed by the ED under section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short, PML Act), or the provisional attachment order dated 31st March 2018, or the confirmation order dated 17th September 2018, name of the Directors of the petitioner-company does not appear anywhere either as accused who have committed money-laundering or as having been involved in any manner whatsoever with commission of the offence under section 3 of the PML Act. Notwithstanding that, the subject-property has been attached by the ED for "value thereof" for an amount of Rs. 12 Lakhs.

3. On behalf of the petitioner-company, it is submitted that the subject-property was purchased by it through a registered sale-deed dated 15th June 2016 much before the provisional attachment order was passed on 31st March 2018 by the Deputy Director of the Enforcement Directorate at Ranchi. The petitioner-company or its Directors are not accused either in the cases filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short, CBI) or the Directorate of Enforcement (in short, ED). Mrs. Ritu Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner-company therefore submits that she is not questioning the legality of the provisional and final attachment orders and all that the petitioner-company wants is release of the subject-property which has been attached for "value thereof", on deposit of the "value thereof" amount by the petitioner-company so that it can deal with the subject-property in whatever manner it wants. It is submitted that once the subject-property is released from attachment the petitioner-company can legally realise Rs. 12 Lakhs from the seller so deposited by it and this is the reason the petitioner-company is not required to question the actions taken by the ED in course of the investigation.

4. In the context of the case pleaded by the petitioner-company, it is necessary to indicate that the definition of "property" under Clause (v) of section 2 of the PML Act provides that property can be of any description corporeal or non-corporeal, movable or immovable, tangible or intangible and includes deeds and instruments evidencing title to, or interest in, such property or assets, wherever located. And, "attachment" as defined under section (2)(d) means prohibition of transfer, conversion, disposition or movement of property by an order issued under Chapter III.

5. The proceeds of crime in the case registered by the ED is an amount of Rs. 7 Crores paid by M/s Electrosteel Castings Ltd. to the accused persons which has been tendered through six cheques all dated 26th January 2004 and 7th February 2004. And, as noticed above, the subject-property which has been attached is not the proceeds of crime and the Directors of the petitioner-company are not involved in any transaction with respect to the proceeds of crime. This is also not a case pleaded by the ED that the subject-property was acquired by the petitioner-company from the proceeds of crime involved in ECIR.

6. The Adjudicating Authority has provided reasons for confirming the order of provisional attachment dated 31st March 2018 for "value thereof" in paragraph no. 17 of the order dated 17th September 2018. From this order of the Adjudicating Authority, it is more than clear that the petitioner-company or its Directors are not involved in any manner whatsoever with the offence of money-laundering or any act of concealment, transfer, possession etc. of the proceeds of crime for which the ECIR has been registered by the ED on 30th January 2015. In the prosecution complaint dated 13th December 2018 and the supplementary complaint dated 29th January 2021, the ED has not even whispered about involvement of the petitioner-company in money-laundering or any of the offending acts for concealment, possession, uses, transfer etc. of the proceeds of crime.

7. In the confirmation order dated 17th September 2018, the Adjudicating Authority has recorded the following reasons for confirming attachment of the subject-property:

"17. Value Thereof:

It is often seen that after indulging into a criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or after commission of the scheduled offence, the proceeds which are derived, directly or indirectly, are not necessarily kept or available in the same form. They are transferred, converted, siphoned or merged into distinct assets, so as to disguise the original character of the proceeds of crime. It is thus seen in many situation that the proceeds of crime would not be easily available and traceable in the original form as derived from the activities above referred. The criminals are many a times successful in utilization and evaporating the gains derived from criminal activities/schedule offence, thus not leaving any trace of the original proceeds of crime. In such a case, the provisions of the PML Act cannot be seen as purpose-less provisions. In order to deal legally with such illegitimate earnings and/or its clever exhaustion by the criminals, the other assets of the criminals can be taken charge of, treating it as the proceeds of crime or the value of the proceeds of crime. The term value thereof would thus include equivalent value of the assets of Criminals/Defendants/Accused. The concept of value thereof in the definition of proceeds of crime has to be given the meaning in consonance with the intention and purpose of PMLA. Somewhat similar provisions exist in the criminal law (Amendment) ordinance of 1944. Thus when the property is not traceable or is dissipated, than any other property belonging to the person/accused can be confiscated. It is clear that if the accused is successful in concealing the original property, he cannot be permitted to have advantage thereof, but any other property on which the authority can lay hands can be attached.

The Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority of PMLA in its order (No. 76/2010) in the case of Madhu Koda deliberated on the scope of proceeds of crime and the relevant paragraph are reproduced as under:-

110. Nothing on the statute is redundant. Every word on the statute has a purpose. An interpretation deleting the phraseology the value of any such property as redundant would defeat the legislative purpose. We can only interpret but cannot legislate. We cannot add or delete. This is the settled position of law.

111. A money launderer being a smart person can easily outsmart the Directorate of Enforcement by transferring the property or make it invisible to the enforcing agencies. For example, a huge deposit in the bank account which was proceeds of crime can be transferred or withdrawn from the account very easily and sometimes instantaneously by click of a button of the computer by the launderer having e-banking facilities. If the Director would not have the powers to attach any other property or equivalent value the very purpose of PMLA would be defeated.

112. Though ordinarily the Director attaches properties acquired subsequent to generation of proceeds of crime perhaps because front view is more comfortable than the back view while driving. In our opinion, it is not out of bounds for him to attach properties that came into existence before generation of proceeds of crime.

113. The provisions of attachment and ultimate confiscation are obviously intended to neutralize the financial benefits that the money launderer gains by committing the scheduled offences. That objective may not be achieved in certain circumstances unless the Director has powers to attach properties acquired even before the generation of proceeds of crime. The Director cannot be faulted as long as the value of the properties attached does not exceed the quantum of crime.

114. The value of the property cannot be conceived in a vacuum. It has to have reference to a physical entity. Therefore, in our considered view the Director is entitled to attach any property of equivalent value, irrespective of its date of acquisition by the Defendant".

The following observations of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in case of J. Sekar V/s Union of India [ D/O 11.01.2018 in W.P.(C) 5320/2017], are relevant.

"47. The above submissions ignore the important disjunctive 'or' occurring between the expression 'the value of any such property' in (b) above and the expression in (c)-where such a property is taken or held outside the country . On the contrary, the qualifying word 'such' in (b) refers to the earlier portion in (a) viz., property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by 'any person' as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled to a scheduled offence.

48. The above definition is to be read with Section 2(1)(b) which defines 'property' to mean any property or assets-of every description, whether corporeal or incorporeal, moveable or immovable, tangible or intangible including title to or interest in such a property and their assets, wherever located. The Explanation to Section 2 (1)(b) defines property to mean property of any kind used in the commission of an offence under the PMLA itself or of any scheduled offence. Therefore, the expression 'value of any such property' would be a value equivalent to the value of a property derived or obtained directly or indirectly by any person as a result of criminal activity. The property itself may no longer be available but the equivalent value of such a property, whether held in cash, etc., would be available for attachment.

49. The wide definition of the phase 'proceed of crime' has to be borne in mind while examining the scope of the power of attachment of such proceeds of crime."

8. The subject-property was purchased by the petitioner-company through a registered sale-deed dated 15th June 2016 and the provisional attachment order has been made on 31st March 2018 by the respondent no.2 at Ranchi. It is therefore submitted that the ED could not have attached the subject-property which was registered in the name of the petitioner-company on the date of provisional attachment. The petitioner-company has produced a copy of eviction notice dated 15th October 2018 vide Annexure-3 to demonstrate that as on that date also the ED did not issue any notice to it rather the eviction notice was issued to the Director of M/s Domco Pvt. Ltd. On behalf of the ED, an explanation is sought to be offered that the accused persons who appeared before the ED on different dates never disclosed that the subject-property has been sold to the petitioner-company. This, in my opinion, cannot be a reason to oppose the release of the subject-property from attachment. Rather, the ED on its own should have moved to release the subject-property in favor of the petitioner-company and attached other property or bank account of the accused, as has been done in 2nd and 3rd attachment proceedings against M/s Domco Pvt. Ltd. and the other accused.

9. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, the learned counsel for the ED has raised inter alia the following fourfolds submissions to oppose this writ petition:

(i) on the basis of RC/221/2014/E/0015 filed by the CBI, the ED has registered ECIR at New Delhi and the orders of confirmation of the attachment have been passed by the Adjudicating Authority at New Delhi;

(ii) by virtue of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (CRL.) No(s). 120 of 2012 and batch cases and also in "Girish Kumar Suneja v. CBI" (Criminal Appeal No. 1137 of 2017) all cases pertaining to coal-block allocation have to be investigated by the Designated Authority and tried at the Designated Court at New Delhi;

(iii) in respect of the subject-property a prayer has been made by the ED for confiscation of the said property and, moreover, the subject-property is under possession and enjoyment of the petitioner-company and;

(iv) the final attachment order in respect of the subject-property is under challenge by the accused persons before the Appellate Tribunal under the PML Act in a petition vide FPA-PMLA-2575/RNC/2018 in which a "no coercive order" has been passed by the Appellate Tribunal.

10. In the order dated 25th July 2014 passed in the aforesaid batch of writ petitions the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed as under:

"9. All cases pending before different courts in Delhi pertaining to coal block allocation matters shall stand transferred to the court of Special Judge as afore-noted."

11. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, the learned counsel for the ED has referred to the judgment in "Girish Kumar Suneja v. CBI" (Criminal Appeal No. 1137 of 2017) to submit that the confusion as to jurisdiction of different High Courts to deal with any matter relating to coal-block allocation has been set at rest by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by rejecting the plea urged on behalf of the aggrieved persons that jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be curtailed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

12. The gist of the objection raised by the ED is that the present writ petition is not maintainable in the High Court of Jharkhand.

13. So far as jurisdiction of this Court is concerned, the explanation to section 42 of the PML Act provides that "High Court" means (i) the High Court within the jurisdiction of which the aggrieved party ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain; and (ii) where the Central Government is the aggrieved party the High Court within the jurisdiction of which the respondent or in a case where there are more than one respondent any of the respondents ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. There is no dispute that the subject-property is situated and registered at Ranchi within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Jharkhand. The petitioner-company has its registered office at Ranchi within the State of Jharkhand and it carries on business from here. Furthermore, the provisional attachment order dated 31st March 2018 has been passed by the respondent no.2 at Ranchi.

14. Secondly, the petitioner-company has brought on record the proceedings of the cases filed by the ED in the High Court of Jharkhand against the orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal under the PML Act against the confirmation order of the Adjudicating Authority, such as: order dated 5th June 2020, 6th November 2020 and 4th December 2020 in A.C. (S.B) No. 1 of 2019; order dated 5th June 2020, 6th November 2020, 4th December 2020 and 22nd January 2021 in A.C (S.B) No. 03 of 2019; order dated 5th June 2020, 6th November 2020, 4th December 2020 and 22nd January 2021 in A.C (S.B) No. 4 of 2019.

15. The petitioner-company has also produced the proceedings dated 15th October 2019, 27th May 2021 and 28th May 2021 in W.P.(Cr.) No. 326 of 2019 which has been filed by M/s Domco Pvt. Ltd. and other accused persons to challenge the very registration of the ECIR. In this writ petition, the ED has filed counter-affidavit and appeared on different dates. The learned counsel for the petitioner-company submits that the writ Court has granted interim protection to the accused persons by an order dated 15th October 2019 passed in W.P.(Cr.) No. 326 of 2019 and the said order has been extended by an order dated 28th May 2021 in presence of the investigating officer, which is produced vide Annexure-9 series through the supplementary affidavit.

16. While this is the understanding of the ED that the High Court of Jharkhand has jurisdiction in the matter, the objection raised in the counter-affidavit on the basis of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (CRL.) No(s). 120 of 2012 and batch cases seems to have been raised only for the sake of opposition to the prayer made by the petitioner-company.

17. Moreover, what relief is sought by the petitioner-company is also relevant to note. All that the petitioner-company wants is that its property should be released from attachment on its depositing the amount of "value thereof". The petitioner-company has not raised any grievance against the investigation or adjudication, or even legality and proprietary of investigation and adjudication proceedings or for that matter against the attachment of other properties of the accused persons. In the present case, the proceeds of crime is in the form of money and in the prosecution complaint and supplementary complaint filed by the ED money-trail has been shown to lead to other properties but not to the subject-property. On the contrary, the ED has attached the subject-property thinking the same belonging to the accused persons and the subject-property has been attached for "value thereof". Therefore, all that the ED can insist upon is the value in terms of money equivalent to, for what "value thereof" this property has been attached.

18. This is also a matter of record that 2nd provisional attachment order vide PAO No. 03/2019 is in respect of Rs. 2,92,42,220.55/-in different bank accounts of the accused persons. Another attachment order vide PAO No. 2 of 2020 dated 21st October 2020 also pertains to attachment of Rs. 11,92,486/-lying in bank account of the accused. The learned counsel for the petitioner-company has submitted that the present petition does not deal with the offence committed by M/s Domco Pvt. Ltd. and its Directors or the case registered by the ED and actions taken thereunder and the prayer made by the petitioner-company does not pertain to or touch upon legality of any of the actions of the Designated Authorities. It is contended that the petitioner-company is constrained to come to this Court because the ED did not pay heed to its representation for release of the subject-property and, in turn, infringed its Constitutional and statutory rights. It is further submitted that the technical objection raised by the ED that the provisional attachment order has been confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority and is subject-matter before the Appellate Tribunal is without any substance inasmuch as just by providing an information to the Appellate Tribunal the desired purpose can be achieved or the ED itself may issue an addendum to 1st provisional attachment order.

19. The right to property is a Constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and every citizen of the country has a right to deal with his property in whatsoever manner he wants to enjoy the property which shall include sale, lease, transfer, mortgage etc. Therefore the plea urged on behalf of the ED that the petitioner-company is in possession and enjoying the subject-property is not a valid objection and liable to be rejected summarily. The powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are plenary in nature and can be exercised by the High Court irrespective of any technical objection raised by the respondent. In Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani, (1989) 2 SCC 691, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:

"22. ... Mandamus is a very wide remedy which must be easily available "to reach injustice wherever it is found". Technicalities should not come in the way of granting that relief under Article 226...."

20. In the light of the aforesaid considerations, the prayer for release of the subject-property is accepted. The respondent no.2 is directed to accept the amount of Rs. 12 Lakhs tendered by the petitioner-company through bank draft in the name of Directorate of Enforcement payable at Ranchi which shall be deposited in the interest-bearing account till completion of the trial in ECIR/RSZO/01/2015. On the petitioner-company producing proof of realising the "value thereof" price from the seller and making deposit of Rs. 12 Lakhs through bank draft, the respondent no.2 shall pass necessary order within 4 weeks for release of the subject-property from attachment and communicate the said order to the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Tribunal. Just to clarify, that the amount of Rs. 12 Lakhs so deposited by the petitioner-company after realising this amount from the seller shall become part of the attached property.

21. W.P.(Cr.) No. 80 of 2022 is allowed, in the aforesaid terms.

22. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the respondent no.1.