Mr. Himanshu Upadhyaya, Ms. Ruby Sharma and Ms. Aastha Singh, Advs v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ORS

% CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA J U D G M E N T MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J : 1. W.P. (Crl.) 614/2024 has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (‘Constitution’), seeking directions to statutory authorities, including the Directorate of Enforcement (‘ED’) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’), to investigate the alleged siphoning of funds by a real estate company, M/s IREO Residences Company Pvt. Ltd., its group companies, and its directors, Mr. Lalit Goyal and Ms. Sapna Goyal. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the Reserve Bank of India (‘RBI’) to freeze the funds lying in the Escrow Account in the name of M/s IREO Residences Company Pvt. Ltd. 1.1 In the said writ petition, vide order dated 22.02.2024, this Court issued notice only to the State, through the SHO, Patparganj (Respondent No. 1) as well as SHO, P.S. Parliament Street (Respondent No. 2), and the ED (Respondent No. 4). No notice was issued to the CBI (Respondent No. 3), RBI (Respondent No. 5) and other Private Respondents, who were arrayed as Signature Not Verified Signed By:MAMTA RANI Signing Date:02.07.2025 18:30:21 W.P.(CRL) 614/2024 & connected matters parties. Vide orders dated 21.05.2024 and 21.11.2024, this Court directed that the Petitioner shall first address the issue of maintainability of the aforementioned writ petition. 2. W.P. (Crl.) 862/2024 has been filed by the same Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution wherein Petitioner has made allegations regarding the ED's failure to properly investigate and attach assets in the IREO Group’s money laundering case. It is contended that while the ED has identified Rs. 4,246 crores as proceeds of crime, however, it has only attached properties worth Rs. 1,317 crores, deliberately excluding high-value assets such as 149 acres of prime land in Delhi, Gurgaon properties, and overseas investments. The petitioner alleges investigative bias and collusion accordingly; Petitioner seeks a direction to the ED to register a case under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’) and pass Provisional Attachment Order (‘PAO’) under Section 5(1) of PMLA prohibiting the Private Respondents and other accused from alienating proceeds of crime. The Petitioner sought to impugn the PAO no. 1/2022 dated 14.10.2022. 2.1 The aforementioned writ petition first came for hearing before this Court on 14.03.2024 wherein the Petitioner sought liberty from court to delete Union of India, through Ministry of Home affairs (Respondent No. 1) from the array of parties, however, the Court was of the opinion that prayers sought in the writ petition qua the said Respondent are not maintainable, however, notice was issued and issue of maintainability was left open and vide order dated 21.11.2024, the Court clarified that the arguments on maintainability would be heard and adjudicated first. 2.2 In this petition, there was no disclosure of the pendency of W.P. (Crl.) 614/2024. In fact, the Petitioner while pleading the mandatory non-filing Signature Not Verified Signed By:MAMTA RANI Signing Date:02.07.2025 18:30:21 W.P.(CRL) 614/2024 & connected matters clause in the writ petition [at paragraph 9], made a false declaration with respect to non-pendency of any other writ petition. The Petitioner was bound to disclose the pendency of W.P. (Crl.) 614/2024. 3. W.P. (Crl.) 1111/2024 has also been filed by the same Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution on 05.04.2024, based on similar averments and the same cause of action as in W.P. (Crl.) 614/2024 seeking a specific direction in W.P. (Crl.) 1111/2024 for investigation by the CBI into the alleged siphoning of funds by M/s IREO Residences Company Pvt. Ltd., its group companies, and its directors, Mr. Lalit Goyal and Ms. Sapna Goyal. 3.1 In this petition, there was no disclosure as to the pendency of W.P. (Crl.) 614/2024 and W.P. (CRL.) 862/2024. In fact, the Petitioner while pleading the mandatory non-filing clause in the writ petition [at paragraph 10], made a false declaration with respect to non-pendency of any other writ petition. The Petitioner was bound to disclose the pendency of the said writ petition. 3.2 In W.P. (Crl.) 1111/2024, the Petitioner has acknowledged that the ED had already registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (‘ECIR’) against M/s IREO Residences Company Pvt. Ltd. and its key managerial personnel, pursuant to which an investigation is ongoing and a supplementary charge-sheet has been filed. The Petitioner also sought directions to restrain the Private Respondents from alienating the alleged proceeds of crime. 3.3 No notice has been issued in this writ petition. Vide order dated

21.11.2024, the matter was listed for arguments on issue of maintainability. 4. W.P. (Crl.) 1219/2024 has also been filed by the same Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking direction to Union of India, through Ministry of Home affairs and ED to initiate appropriate legal action against Signature Not Verified Signed By:MAMTA RANI Signing Date:02.07.2025 18:30:21 W.P.(CRL) 614/2024 & connected matters Mr. Lalit Goyal, Mrs. Sapna Goyal, and other Key Managerial Personnel of M/s IREO Group of Companies. The Petitioner alleges a large-scale financial fraud involving the illegal diversion of Rs. 600 crores of public money through a shell company M/s Incredible Realcon Pvt. Ltd., to Mauritius-based accounts beneficially owned by one Mr. Lalit Goyal. 4.1 Petitioner contends that these transactions constitute ‘Proceeds of Crime’ as defined under Section 2(u) of the PMLA and seeks judicial intervention to direct the registration of a criminal complaint and a comprehensive investigation into the fraudulent transactions; issuance of a PAO under Section 5(1) of PMLA and to freeze the illicitly diverted funds and prevent further alienation. Petitioner also seeks direction to Union of India, through Ministry of Home affairs and ED to share information with concerned agency under the relevant provisions of law. 4.2 In this petition, there was no disclosure of the pendency of W.P. (Crl.) 614/2024, W.P. (CRL.) 862/2024 and W.P. (CRL) 1111/2024. In fact, the Petitioner while pleading the mandatory non-filing clause in the writ petition [at paragraph 9], made a false declaration with respect to non-pendency of any other writ petition. The Petitioner was bound to disclose the pendency of the said writ petitions. 4.3 The aforementioned writ petition first came for hearing before Court on 23.04.2024 wherein the Court upon being apprised about the pendency of the other writ petitions deemed it appropriate not to issue notice in the said writ petition and vide orders dated 21.05.2024 and 21.11.2024 clarified that issue of maintainability would be adjudicated first. 5. W.P. (Crl.) 2595/2024 has been filed by the same Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking direction to Union of India, through Signature Not Verified Signed By:MAMTA RANI Signing Date:02.07.2025 18:30:21 W.P.(CRL) 614/2024 & connected matters Ministry of Finance, ED, Serious Fraud Investigation Office (‘SFIO’), Directorate of Income Tax and Economic Offices Wing (‘EOW’), Delhi Police to investigate into the allegations of fraud, money laundering, and corporate malfeasance by M/s IREO Group of companies and its key managerial persons. 5.1 In the said writ petition, the Petitioner has alleged that M/s Blue Planet Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., a IREO group company was fraudulently used in land transactions even prior to its legal incorporation on 09.08.2010, with fabricated board resolutions and sale deeds being created to show its involvement in transactions held in July, 2010 and earlier. It is stated that M/s Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. and its promoters colluded with M/s Blue Planet Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. to divert homebuyers' funds through sham transactions between 2010-2016, despite the land being fully financed by the companies of IREO Group. It is stated that despite ED's supplementary prosecution complaint filed in ECIR/GNZO/10/2021 on 04.08.2023 acknowledging these irregularities and further Income Tax findings revealing fund diversions, the investigative agencies have failed to take action due to undue influence. Therefore, through the aforementioned writ petition, the Petitioner has also sought court-monitored investigations to ensure a fair, unbiased, and expeditious probe into the matter. 5.2 In this petition, there was no disclosure of the pendency of W.P. (Crl.) 614/2024, W.P. (CRL.) 862/2024, W.P. (CRL) 1111/2024 and W.P. (CRL) 1219/2024. In fact, the Petitioner while pleading the mandatory non-filing clause in the writ petition [at paragraph 20], made a false declaration with respect to non-pendency of any other writ petition. The Petitioner was bound to disclose the pendency of the said writ petitions. Signature Not Verified Signed By:MAMTA RANI Signing Date:02.07.2025 18:30:21 W.P.(CRL) 614/2024 & connected matters

5.3 The aforementioned writ petition first came for hearing before Court on 27.08.2024 wherein the learned counsel appearing for the Private Respondents informed the Court that the same Petitioner has filed multiple writ petitions seeking similar reliefs, therefore, the Court finds it not a fit case to issue notice and vide orders dated 21.11.2024 clarified that issue of maintainability would be adjudicated first. 6. In W.P. (CRL) 862/2024 and W.P. (CRL) 1219/2024, the Petitioner made a declaration that he is a homebuyer and his hard-earned money has been duped by the Private Respondent i.e., builder. The Private Respondent has stated that Petitioner is not an allottee in any of the projects launched by the IREO group companies. It stated that no money has been invested by the Petitioner with any of the IREO group companies. The Petitioner, during the course of submissions has admitted the stance of the Respondent and concedes that the Petitioner is not a homebuyer and he has not invested any amount with IREO group companies. The Petitioner had no explanation for making the aforementioned false declaration to the contrary in the aforenoted writ petitions. 7. In light of the orders dated 21.05.2024 and 21.11.2024, this Court deems it appropriate to first adjudicate upon the issue of maintainability of the writ petitions filed by the same Petitioner, as the averments made and reliefs sought in the aforementioned writ petitions are substantially identical and arise from the same set of facts and circumstances. Accordingly, W.P. (Crl.) 614/2024 is hereby designated as the lead petition for the limited purpose of determining the maintainability of the series of writ petitions filed by the Petitioner. Signature Not Verified Signed By:MAMTA RANI Signing Date:02.07.2025 18:30:21 W.P.(CRL) 614/2024 & connected matters

8. Consequently, for the sake of convenience, the factual matrix and memo of parties as set out in W.P. (Crl.) 614/2024 shall be treated as the representative case for the purpose of examining and adjudicating upon the issue of locus standi and the maintainability of the reliefs prayed for in all the connected writ petitions. Brief facts in W.P. (Crl.) 614/2024 9. The brief facts, as set out in W.P. (Crl.) 614/2024, are that the Petitioner, while searching for a residential property, came across an advertisement dated

16.09.2023 published in the Hindustan Times for Project namely ‘IREO Savannah’ by M/s Faith Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., a group company of Respondent No. 61, which claimed ownership of a plot located in Sohna, Haryana. Upon visiting the site, the Petitioner discovered that M/s Faith Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. was not the actual owner. Instead, four entities were involved in the project: M/s Faith Buildtech (Developer), M/s Trinayan Infracon (Owner), M/s Siddhanta Infracon (Owner), and M/s Gulmohar Real Build (Owner). 9.1 It is stated that this revelation led the Petitioner to suspect misrepresentation, and upon enquiry, the Petitioner discovered that the advertised property was linked to another project, namely the ‘Grand Hyatt Residences’ Project in Gurgaon, which had been launched in 2012 but had remained stalled since 2014. It is further stated that the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (‘HRERA’) had rejected the project’s approval in 2017 due to significant deficiencies. 9.2 It is stated that Petitioner also uncovered that Respondent No. 6, the developer of the project, had fraudulently mortgaged the land for Rs. 1,181 1 M/s IREO Residences Company Pvt. Ltd. Signature Not Verified Signed By:MAMTA RANI Signing Date:02.07.2025 18:30:21 W.P.(CRL) 614/2024 & connected matters crores to Axis Trustees and later fraudulently modified the charge in favour of Bank of Mauritius on 10.03.2022. Moreover, the monies collected from homebuyers were allegedly siphoned off to Mauritius under the pretext of purchasing shares of a related entity at inflated prices. It is stated that Respondent No. 6 also defaulted in filing statutory financial statements with the Registrar of Companies (‘RoC’) since Financial Year 2013–14, thereby concealing these transactions. 9.3 It is stated that upon learning of these irregularities, the Petitioner approached Respondent No. 2, on 27.01.2024 to file a complaint, disclosing cognizable offences under Sections 406, /420, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of PMLA. However, the duty officer refused to receive the complaint physically, prompting the Petitioner to send it via Speed Post, which was delivered on 29.01.2024. The Petitioner subsequently received an SMS confirming receipt of the complaint and the Complaint Reference Number on 30.01.2024, another SMS informed the Petitioner that an Enquiry Officer had been assigned. It is stated that given the urgency of the matter, the Petitioner also submitted the complaint to Respondent No. 4/ED, under the PMLA via Speed Post, which was delivered on 30.01.2024 9.4 It is stated that on 31.01.2024, upon receiving confirmation of receipt of complaint from Respondent No. 2, the Petitioner approached Respondent No. 5/RBI, which holds custody over the Escrow Account in the name of Respondent No. 6 and requested immediate legal action. The Petitioner specifically requested that the amount of Rs. 600 crores collected from the homebuyers which is deposited in the said account be frozen to prevent any unlawful transfer to foreign entities without due investigation. Signature Not Verified Signed By:MAMTA RANI Signing Date:02.07.2025 18:30:21 W.P.(CRL) 614/2024 & connected matters

9.5 It is stated that Petitioner upon apprehension that the Respondent No. 5 might allow the transfer of Rs. 600 crores in collusion with officials of Respondent No. 6, the Petitioner also wrote to the Respondent No.3/CBI on

06.12.2023. The request was to investigate the matter and, if necessary, share the information with the ED under the PMLA. 9.6 It is stated that no action has been taken to date, therefore, the present writ petitions have been filed seeking appropriate directions to Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 to initiate legal proceedings and criminal prosecution against the Respondent companies and their Directors and Key Managerial Persons responsible for the conduct of business, for offences committed under applicable provisions of law and further seeking a direction to Respondent No. 5 to not to allow foreign remittance of Rs.600 crores lying in Escrow Account in the name of Respondent No. 6. Arguments of Petitioner 10. Mr. Himanshu Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the Petitioner stated that the Petitioners intent is limited to placing on record cogent information and documents as to the siphoning of funds and corporate mismanagement by IREO group companies, and seeks a direction from this Court to the investigating authorities to conduct a proper investigation into the concerns raised by the Petitioner regarding financial mismanagement in the IREO Group through its directors, Lalit Goel and Sapna Goel. 10.1 He stated that despite submission of all the relevant information by the Petitioner to the ED, there has been no response from the agency even after notice being issued by this Court and, therefore, this inaction is a violation of statutory duty and warrants judicial intervention. Signature Not Verified Signed By:MAMTA RANI Signing Date:02.07.2025 18:30:21 W.P.(CRL) 614/2024 & connected matters

10.2 He stated that the financial irregularities in the IREO group companies have resulted in substantial losses to Public Sector Banks and bonafide homebuyers, who invested their monies in projects launched by subsidiaries of the IREO Group. He stated that out of 4705 customers, 1700 have not received their allotted flats/plots despite having paid 90-95% of the consideration. He stated that approximately, 640 customers have paid over Rs. 1,376 crores but have neither received possession nor any communication. He stated that whereas ED has filed prosecution complaints and attached properties worth Rs. 1,317 crores; however, even as per ED’s own supplementary charge-sheet the amount in question is Rs. 4,246.22 crores and, therefore, a significant portion remains unattached. He states that ED has failed to take action to secure this amount and the Private Respondents are disposing off their assets. 10.3 He stated that the Petitioner has the locus to maintain the present writ petition, notwithstanding the fact that the Petitioner is not directly affected, as the issue concerns public interest. He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak2 to contend that any person may set the criminal law in motion, and that absence of direct locus cannot be a ground to reject legitimate grievances pertaining to financial crimes. 10.4 He stated that in the present writ petitions, the Petitioner is not assailing the legality or correctness of the investigation by the agency. He stated that keeping in view the funds of the Banks/Financial Institution and Customers, the intent of the Petitioner is that the agency looks into the evidences available against the Private Respondents i.e., the builder. 2 (1984) 2 SCC 500. Signature Not Verified Signed By:MAMTA RANI Signing Date:02.07.2025 18:30:21 W.P.(CRL) 614/2024 & connected matters

10.5 Petitioner has filed and relied upon its written submissions dated 18.03.2025. Arguments of Respondent No. 4, Enforcement Directorate 11. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned Special Counsel for ED stated that the present writ petitions are not maintainable on the ground that Petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ petitions as the Petitioner is not a person aggrieved under Article 226 of the Constitution. 11.1 He stated that investigation against the IREO group companies, its director Mr. Lalit Goyal, related/associate companies, and other key managerial personnel is already underway. He contended that since the investigation is ongoing, no direction can be issued to the ED regarding the manner or mode of investigation, which lies solely within the prerogative of the Investigating Officer and Agency. In support of this contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement3. 11.2 He stated that Gurgaon Zonal Office of Enforcement Directorate has registered an ECIR against IERO Group, its director Mr. Lalit Goyal, related/associate companies and other key managerial personnel vide ECIR/GNZO/10/2021 under PMLA on 15.06.2021 pursuant to which the investigation was conducted, leading to the arrest of Mr. Lalit Goyal. 11.3 He stated that on the basis of the evidence collected following investigation under ECIR/GNZO/10/2021, the ED filed a prosecution complaint dated 14.01.2022 qua the main accused Lalit Goyal and six IREO group of corporate entities before the learned Special Court (PMLA), 3 (2019) 9 SCC 24 Signature Not Verified Signed By:MAMTA RANI Signing Date:02.07.2025 18:30:21 W.P.(CRL) 614/2024 & connected matters Panchkula. The Special Court took cognizance vide order dated 21.01.2022. and granted permission to continue the investigation. As further investigation is underway, the reliefs sought in the present writ petitions are without any merit. 11.4 He stated that investigation had revealed that customers/homebuyers money to the tune of Rs. 1,376 crores, received for development of projects, was diverted out of IREO group of companies unlawfully thus, creating losses to the homebuyers. He stated that to safeguard the interest of the homebuyers, the Directorate issued a PAO no. 01/2022 dated 14.10.2022 under Section 5 of the PMLA for properties worth Rs. 1,317 crores (approx.) belonging to the IREO group companies and their key persons found to be involved in money laundering. 11.5 He stated that during investigation, the agency also learnt about illegal diversion of customer funds of Rs. 404 crores to M3M group of companies which led to search of the premises of M3M group of companies as well as arrest of one of its directors. He stated that a supplementary prosecution complaint dated 04.08.2023 was filed against 52 persons/corporate entities. He stated that properties of M3M group have also been attached. 11.6 He stated that the learned Special Judge (PMLA), Panchkula vide order dated 09.10.2023, has granted permission to the agency to continue its investigation and file another supplementary prosecution complaint. 11.7 He stated that PAO No. 03/2024 was issued on 20.05.2024 to attach the remaining proceeds of crime identified and quantified till that point of time. He stated that total proceeds of crime identified till date in the instant PMLA case is Rs. 1,376 crores, which has been attached by PAOs dated 14.10.2022 and 20.05.2024. Signature Not Verified Signed By:MAMTA RANI Signing Date:02.07.2025 18:30:21 W.P.(CRL) 614/2024 & connected matters

11.8 He stated that in furtherance of the investigation, the ED has shared the information so collected under Section 66(2) of the PMLA with EOW, Delhi which has resulted in registration of FIR No. 0014 dated 12.03.2024. 11.9 He stated that thus, in the aforesaid facts, since further investigation in the matter is in progress pertaining to the unidentified/untraced transactions pertaining to the IREO group companies, the relief sought in the present petition are not maintainable. 11.10 While responding to factual averments in each writ petition, he stated that in reference to W.P. (Crl.) Nos. 614/2024 and 862/2024, he stated that the ED has already covered the issues raised therein through prosecution complaints under Sections 44 and 45(1) of the PMLA, and by issuing two PAOs followed by Original Complaints under Section 5 of the PMLA. The identified proceeds of crime till date amounting to Rs. 1,376 Crores, which includes Rs. 373.95 Crores collected by M/s IREO Residences Co. Pvt. Ltd. from the homebuyers for the ‘Grand Hyatt Residences’ project and the entire amount stands attached under the provisions of the PMLA. 11.11 With respect to W.P. (Crl.) Nos. 1111/2024 and 1219/2024, he stated that the alleged diversion of Rs. 533 Crores out of the loan amount of Rs. 600 crores, by Private Respondent in 2017 has already been addressed in the first prosecution complaint dated 14.01.2022, particularly in Paragraphs 10.4.5 and 10.4.8 wherein it was detailed that the M/s IREO Group transferred funds offshore through entities such as M/s Luzige Ltd. and M/s Sethos Ltd., without any project completion, and based solely on valuation reports. 11.12 He stated that as a part of fact-finding exercise, ED made enquiries with the lending banks which revealed that no predicate offence has been registered at the instance of the lender banks with any competent Law Enforcement Signature Not Verified Signed By:MAMTA RANI Signing Date:02.07.2025 18:30:21 W.P.(CRL) 614/2024 & connected matters Agency (‘LEA’) in respect of diversion of the said loan amount of Rs. 600 crores therefore, in the absence of any predicate offence the ED does not have jurisdiction to investigate the said alleged offence of money laundering. He stated that the lender banks have already initiated SARFAESI proceedings against the debtor company. 11.13 He stated that the genesis of the ECIR/GNZO/10/2021 is based on alleged proceeds of crime arising from complaints of homebuyers regarding non-delivery of booked units despite payment of booking amounts; however, the core allegations made by the Petitioners in the present writ petitions pertain to offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 470, 471, 472, and 120B of IPC, which fall outside the investigative jurisdiction of the ED. 11.14 He stated that the Petitioner’s allegations in W.P. (Crl.) No. 2595/2024 regarding an advance payment of Rs. 35 Lakh prior to the incorporation of the company is factually incorrect, as the sale deed annexed to the petition reflects a one-time payment of Rs. 70 Lakh on 11.08.2010. The allegation that Blue Planet Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. executed a tri-partite agreement on

02.08.2010, prior to its incorporation on 09.08.2010, indicates possible forgery of board resolutions and fraudulent conduct an aspect falling within the jurisdiction of the SFIO, Respondent No. 3. 11.15 He further stated that the said transaction(s) have already been noted in the first prosecution complaint dated 14.01.2022 at paragraph nos. 10.6.1 and

10.6.6 as well as in the supplementary complaint dated 04.08.2023 at paragraph nos. 7.4.7. 11.16 He stated that SFIO is investigating the aforesaid allegation against IREO group companies vide F. No. SFIO/INV/1124/2018-19/IREO/i. Signature Not Verified Signed By:MAMTA RANI Signing Date:02.07.2025 18:30:21 W.P.(CRL) 614/2024 & connected matters

11.17 He stated that the facts set out in each of these writ petitions are within the knowledge of the investigating agency and have been investigated by the ED. He stated that after due consideration the relevant material has been placed in the prosecution complaints. He stated that only with respect to Rs. 600 crore loan transaction, the agency is not investigating the said transaction as it is not a part of any scheduled offence and thus, beyond its jurisdiction. He states that thus, these petitions ought to be dismissed. 11.18 He relies upon the written submissions handed across the bar on 20.03.2025 and the same has been taken on record. Arguments of Respondent No. 7, Lalit Goyal 12. Mr. Viraj R. Datar, learned senior counsel appearing for Private Respondent No. 7 adopts the submissions made by learned counsel for Respondent No. 4 regarding the Petitioner’s lack of locus standi to maintain the present writ petitions. 12.1 In addition to the issue of locus standi, learned senior counsel stated that the Petitioner has attempted to circumvent the limitation of not being an affected party under Article 226 of the Constitution by portraying the writ petitions as public interest litigations (PILs). However, the petitions have neither been titled nor filed in accordance with the Delhi High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010. Accordingly, the Petitioner cannot now claim that the petitions are in the nature of PILs. 12.2 He stated that the Petitioner has abused the process of law by filing multiple writ petitions against Respondent No. 7 and its group companies, seeking similar reliefs relating to investigation, despite being fully aware of pending inquiries. Simultaneously, the Petitioner has lodged multiple Signature Not Verified Signed By:MAMTA RANI Signing Date:02.07.2025 18:30:21 W.P.(CRL) 614/2024 & connected matters complaints before various investigating agencies based on the same cause of action. 12.3 He submitted that the Petitioner has deliberately and intentionally attempted to mislead this Court by making false disclosures as to non-filing, advancing false statements, and misrepresenting previous orders of this Court. To substantiate his submission, he pointed to undertakings given by the Petitioner in W.P. (Crl.) Nos. 862/2024 and 1219/2024, where the Petitioner claimed to be a homebuyer aggrieved by the actions of the Private Respondents and thus an affected party under Article 226. However, as a matter of fact, the Petitioner has not invested even a single penny in any of the projects launched by the Private Respondents. 12.4 He further stated that in W.P. (Crl.) No. 1111/2024, the Petitioner has knowingly distorted and manipulated various orders passed by this Court with the intention of causing prejudice against the Private Respondents, which amounts to committing fraud upon the Court. To substantiate this submission, learned senior counsel has placed before the Court a chart at page 91 of the Convenience Compilation. 12.5 He relies upon the written submissions dated 19.12.2024 and the convenience volume dated 19.12.2024. 13. The Respondent No. 7 has also placed on record a copy of the writ petition filed by the Petitioner herein before the Supreme Court seeking, inter alia, a direction to the ED to pursue its application before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for cancellation of bail granted to Mr. Lalit Goyal vide order dated 08.04.2022, as well as a direction for preservation of the alleged proceeds of crime, reliefs which are substantially similar to those prayed for in the present writ proceedings before this Court. However, the Petitioner, Signature Not Verified Signed By:MAMTA RANI Signing Date:02.07.2025 18:30:21 W.P.(CRL) 614/2024 & connected matters vide order dated 21.03.2025, sought and was granted leave to withdraw the said writ petition by the Supreme Court. The said writ petition and the order dated 21.03.2025 was taken on record vide order dated 27.05.2025 passed by this Court. Analysis and Findings 14. This Court has heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 15. The principal issues that arise for the consideration of this Court are twofold: (i) whether Petitioner has locus standi to file the present writ petition(s); and (ii) whether the present writ petition(s) seeking similar relief(s) as to court monitored investigation are maintainable. Issue No. i: Whether Petitioner has locus standi to file the present writ petitions 16. Before adverting to the factual matrix of the present case, it is apposite to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed4, wherein the Court laid down the settled principle that a person/petitioner invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 must ordinarily have a personal or individual right in the subject matter. The relevant extract of the said judgement reads as under:- “34. This Court has laid down in a number of decisions that in order to have the locus standi to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, an applicant should ordinarily be one who has a personal or individual right in the subject-matter of the application, though in the case of some of the writs like habeas corpus or quo warranto this rule is relaxed or modified. In other words, as a general rule, infringement of some legal right or prejudice to some legal interest inhering in the petitioner is necessary to give him a locus standi in the matter, (see State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta [1951 SCC 1024 : AIR 1952 SC 12 : 1952 SCR 28] ; Calcutta Gas Co. v. State of W.B. [AIR 1962 SC 1044 : 1962 Supp (3) SCR 1] ; Ram Umeshwari Suthoo v. Member, Board of 4 (1976) 1 SCC 671 Signature Not Verified Signed By:MAMTA RANI Signing Date:02.07.2025 18:30:21 W.P.(CRL) 614/2024 & connected matters