The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday sought a response from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on a petition filed by the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) and the Punjab government challenging the ED’s survey and search operation at PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, Mohali.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor fixed October 28 as the next date of hearing and directed the respondents to file their response.
The petition relates to the ED operation carried out at the GMADA office from September 22 to 24. Punjab government and GMADA have challenged the legality of the action and alleged that the operation continued for around 50 hours.
According to the petition, several floors of the premises were sealed during the operation and more than 30 bags of official records were taken away. The petitioners have also alleged that mobile phones, computers and other electronic devices belonging to senior officers were copied or cloned.
The petition further alleges that the Principal Secretary and other senior officers remained at the premises for two nights during the operation.
The case has been filed against the Union of India, the Directorate of Enforcement and other respondents. The Union government was represented before the High Court by senior advocate and Additional Solicitor-General Satya Pal Jain, while senior advocate Vikram Chaudhari appeared for the Punjab government.
The petitioners have said that the ED investigation was initiated on the basis of a CBI FIR concerning an alleged Rs 238-crore bank fraud involving promoters of Tirupati Infra Projects Pvt Ltd.
According to the petition, the CBI FIR relates to allegations that funds were siphoned off for personal benefits. However, GMADA and the Punjab government have argued that neither GMADA nor any of its officers was named as an accused in that FIR.
The petitioners have therefore questioned the basis for the ED’s survey and search at the government authority’s premises.
GMADA and the state government have asked the High Court to provide them with the complete records connected with the ED operation, including the authorisations and reasons recorded for conducting the search.
They have also sought the quashing of the survey and search authorisations, the return of records and electronic devices taken during the operation, and directions preventing the ED from accessing or using data allegedly copied from those devices.
The petitioners have alleged that the ED officials exceeded their legal powers during the operation. They have also claimed that officers were kept at the premises without lawful authority.
The petitioners have referred to Section 62 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), which deals with vexatious search and detention, and argued that the officials responsible could face proceedings if the allegations are established.
GMADA and the Punjab government have further argued that the search was illegal because, according to them, there was no connection between the authority or its officers and the alleged wrongdoing under investigation.
They have contended that if the ED required any documents held by GMADA for its investigation, the records could have been sought through the procedure provided under law instead of conducting the search and sealing portions of the government premises.
The High Court has now sought the respondents’ response. The matter will next be heard on October 28.