[7/14, 10:59] sekarreporter1: KS: For this Chapter VIII in PMLA MiLord, just come to Chapter VIII. It starts at page 48 and says there shall be following classes of authorities for the purpose of this Act for the purpose of searches, surveys and seizures. That is their power. [7/14, 10:59] sekarreporter1: KS: PMLA empowers ED to only conduct an inquiry and not an investigation. (He is now reading paragraphs from SC judgement in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary’s case and asks the judge to readily compare it with the provisions of PMLA.) [7/14, 11:00] sekarreporter1: KS: ED officials are not police authorities. They are supposed to do only what is obligated under the Act. SC says ED powers may have a semblance of an investigation only because it involves search and seizure. Such semblance is also only to satisfy the adjudicating authority [7/14, 11:00] sekarreporter1: KS: So, how do they take them to a Magistrate for remand. What happens is the constitutional provision of producing an arrested person before a Magistrate within 24 hours comes into play. [7/14, 11:01] sekarreporter1: KS: I would submit as far as PMLA is concerned, ED has no police powers at all. They are neither officers in charge of a police station, that provision is absent under PMLA. [7/14, 11:02] sekarreporter1: KS: Deepak Mahajan was only on the issue of judicial custody. Number 2 and this is very interesting. If you look at FERA, you will find in Sec 45 power of police officer to arrest. There is section 35 giving power to ED to produce before Magistrate. I’ll explain why [7/14, 11:03] sekarreporter1: KS: PMLA empowers ED to summons bank officials, financial institutions and brokers who deal with finances. Once all that evidence is collected, it is the same evidence that would be used to file a complaint. I don’t say so, SC says.
[7/14, 10:59] sekarreporter1: KS: PMLA empowers ED to only conduct an inquiry and not an investigation.
(He is now reading paragraphs from SC judgement in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary’s case and asks the judge to readily compare it with the provisions of PMLA.)
[7/14, 11:00] sekarreporter1: KS: ED officials are not police authorities. They are supposed to do only what is obligated under the Act. SC says ED powers may have a semblance of an investigation only because it involves search and seizure. Such semblance is also only to satisfy the adjudicating authority
[7/14, 11:00] sekarreporter1: KS: So, how do they take them to a Magistrate for remand. What happens is the constitutional provision of producing an arrested person before a Magistrate within 24 hours comes into play.
[7/14, 11:01] sekarreporter1: KS: I would submit as far as PMLA is concerned, ED has no police powers at all. They are neither officers in charge of a police station, that provision is absent under PMLA.
[7/14, 11:02] sekarreporter1: KS: Deepak Mahajan was only on the issue of judicial custody. Number 2 and this is very interesting. If you look at FERA, you will find in Sec 45 power of police officer to arrest. There is section 35 giving power to ED to produce before Magistrate. I’ll explain why
[7/14, 11:03] sekarreporter1: KS: PMLA empowers ED to summons bank officials, financial institutions and brokers who deal with finances. Once all that evidence is collected, it is the same evidence that would be used to file a complaint. I don’t say so, SC says.
![https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1730435401209532846?t=W6t1o-UuUs7dvSJ9cvXHeQ&s=08 For appellants : Mr.Haza Nazirudeen Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.M.Venkateswaran Special Government Pleader For respondent : Mr.V.Prakash Senior Advocate for Mr.K.Sudalai Kannu Tax case full order. 13.Insofar as the laches is concerned, it is settled law that when there is considerable delay on the part of the aggrieved party to approach the court and when such delay has created a vested and indefeasible right in favour of another person by lapse of time, the discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution, ought not to be entertained. It is not in dispute that the respondent/writ petitioner has been submitting various representations and communications demanding revision of seniority. However, it is only in 2019, the request has been rejected and immediately the writ petition has been filed. It is also beyond any doubt that the respondent/writ petitioner was originally placed above the 3rd appellant on the date of appointment and when the permanent list was prepared in 2012, the respondent/ writ petitioner was fully qualified. In this case, we have already held that the temporary promotion will not confer any right and therefore, no vested right can accrue to the 3rd appellant. The respondent/writ petitioner has been continuously agitating her cause with the official respondents for refixation of seniority, which ultimately culminated into the impugned order, that was subject matter of the writ petition. Therefore, in the mind of this court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the claim of the respondent / writ petitioner is not hit by laches. It is also relevant to point out at this juncture that the plea of laches was not taken before the Learned Judge and has been raised only in the appeal. In view of the findings rendered above, we are not inclined to entertain this plea at this stage. 14.In fine, the writ appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. [R.M.D, J.] [M.S.Q, J.] 06.06.2023 r n s Speaking Order / Non-speaking order Internet : Yes. Index : Yes /No To 1.The Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, The Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 5. R. MAHADEVAN, J. and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. r n s W.A.No.1587 of 2022 & C.M.P.No.10537 of 2022 06.06.2023](https://sekarreporter.com/wp-content/themes/hueman/assets/front/img/thumb-medium-empty.png)