The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.23883 of 2025 Archana Nag …. Petitioner Mr. Durga Prasad Nanda, Senior Advocate -versus- Union of India and another …. Opp. Parties Mr. Gopal Agrawal, Senior Advocate for Union of India (E.D.) CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. MISHRA Order No. ORDER 08.09.2025 02. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Durga Prasad Nanda, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Gopal Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the opposite parties. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Archana Nag challenging the eviction notice dated 14.08.2025 issued by the Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Bhubaneswar consequent to the Provisional Attachment Order under section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter, Page 1 of 7 ‘PMLA Act’) dated 09.02.2023 passed by the Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Bhubaneswar Zonal Office, which was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 03.07.2023. Mr. Nanda, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner raised the first point that though the eviction notice under section 8(4) of the PMLA Act has been issued by the Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement on 14.08.2025 but sub-section (1) and (3) of 26 of the PMLA Act, inter alia, provides that any person aggrieved by an order made by the Adjudicating Authority, may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal within a period of forty-five days from the date on which a copy of the order was made by the Adjudicating Authority is received. He further submitted that in the order dated 14.08.2025, it should not have been reflected that the petitioner has to vacate the scheduled property along with the furniture and fixtures intact as on the date of attachment and handover the peaceful possession of the premises within ten days from the date of receipt of the notice inasmuch as the petitioner has got a time limit up to forty five days to challenge such eviction notice along with the final attachment order passed by the Adjudicating Authority on dated 03.07.2023. Mr. Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the opposite parties, on the other hand, submitted that the appeal, which has been prescribed under Page 2 of 7 section 26 of the PMLA Act is against the final order to be passed by the Adjudicating Authority and in the present case, the final order is dated 03.07.2023, which would be evident from Annexure-4 and admittedly, the petitioner has not challenged the order under Annexure- 4 within stipulated period of forty-five days before the Appellate Tribunal. He further argued that the eviction notice was issued under section 8(4) of the PMLA Act read with Rule 5(2) of the Prevention of Money- Laundering (Taking Possession of Attached, etc.) Rules, 2013 and the appeal does not lie to the Appellate Tribunal against such notice and it was a consequential notice to the final attachment order dated 03.07.2023 and therefore, it cannot be said that there is any illegality committed on the part of the Deputy Director in fixing the time limit of ten days for the petitioner to vacate the premises as per eviction notice dated 14.08.2025. Adverting to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the relevant provision under section 26 of the PMLA Act, which reads as follows:- “26. Appeals to Appellate Tribunal.- (1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (3), the Director or any person aggrieved by an order made by the Adjudicating Authority under this Act, may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. (2) Any [reporting entity] [Substituted for Page 3 of 7 the words "banking company, financial institution or intermediary" by Act No. 2 of 2013] aggrieved by any order of the Director made under sub-section (2) of section 13, may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. (3) Every appeal preferred under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be filed within a period of forty-five days from the date on which a copy of the order made by the Adjudicating Authority or Director is received and it shall be in such form and be accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed: Provided that the Appellate Tribunal after giving an opportunity of being heard entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of forty-five days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period. (4) On receipt of an appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the Appellate Tribunal may, after giving the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit, confirming, modifying or setting aside the order appealed against. (5) The Appellate Tribunal shall send a copy of every order made by it to the parties to Page 4 of 7 the appeal and to the concerned Adjudicating Authority or the Director, as the case may be. (6) The appeal filed before the Appellate Tribunal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be dealt with by it as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made by it to dispose of the appeal finally within six months from the date of filing of the appeal.” This provision makes it clear that forty five days’ time has been prescribed for preferring appeal against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority from the date when such order was received by the petitioner and in the present case, the said final order has been passed on 03.07.2023 and admittedly, no appeal has been preferred by the petitioner within the stipulated period of forty five days. Further, there is also no dispute that the eviction notice dated 14.08.2025 was in consequence of the order dated 03.07.2023 passed under Annexure-4. Mr. Nanda, learned Senior Advocate submits that the order under Annexure-4 could not be challenged
Decision
within the stipulated period as the writ petitioner was in judicial custody and after she was released from custody, she has preferred this writ petition challenging the orders of the confirmation of attachment by the Adjudicating Authority dated 03.07.2023 as well as the eviction notice dated 14.08.2025. Page 5 of 7 Mr. Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner not only took steps appearing before the Adjudicating Authority on receiving show cause notice but filed her objection and the matter was decided on merit. The final order dated 03.07.2023 also indicates that an appeal lies against the order to the Appellate Tribunal, PMLA, New Delhi under section 26 of the PMLA Act which is to be filed within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the order. The soft copy of the order was also uploaded on the email of the petitioner. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, since we find that the appeal provision is available under section 26 of the PMLA Act for challenging the order dated 03.07.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority and the eviction notice dated 14.08.2025 is a consequential order, the petitioner can challenge such orders before the appropriate forum with an application for condoning the delay stating the reasons for approaching the Appellate Tribunal which is to be considered keeping in view the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 26 of the PMLA Act. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion either on the merits of the order dated 03.07.2023 or the eviction notice dated 14.08.2025 and whether the delay in filing the appeal is to be condoned or not and it is open to the concerned Authority to consider the same in accordance with law. Page 6 of 7 With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Judge ( S.K. Sahoo) Judge ( S.S. Mishra) RKM Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RABINDRA KUMAR MISHRA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 08-Sep-2025 19:26:01 Page 7 of 7