IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

(Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction)

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Krishna Rao

W.P.A. No. 5200 of 2026

Gautam Dhandhania & Anr.

Vs.

Union of India & Ors.

Mr. Raj Mohan Chattoraj, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Sankar Prasad Dolopati

Mr. Rohan Dwaipayan Bhowmick

Ms. Debapriya Ghosh

Ms. Ankita Das

Ms. Priyanka Yadav

...For the petitioners.

Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee

Mr. Dhirodatto Chaudhuri

…. For the U.O.I.

Mr. Dhiraj Trivedi, Ld. D.S.G.I.

Mr. Bhaskar Prosad Banerjee

…. For the E.D.

2

Hearing Concluded On : 09.03.2026

Judgment on :16.03.2026

Krishna Rao, J.:

1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition praying for a

direction upon the respondents for supply of all “Relied Upon

Documents” (RUDs) and for quashing of the impugned show cause

notice dated 25

th November, 2025, issued under Section 8(1) of the

Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA, 2002).

2. On receipt of an application filed by the Deputy Director, Enforcement

Directorate under Sub-Section 4 of Section 17 of the PMLA, 2002, the

Adjudicating Authority had issued show cause notice to the petitioners

on 27

th November, 2025, calling upon the petitioners to show cause as

to why the retention under Sections 20 and 21 of the PMLA, 2002 of

movable properties in the form of cash, digital devices and documents/

records seized, shall not be permitted to be retained by the

Enforcement Directorate in terms of 17(4) of the Act of 2002.

3. On receipt of the notice, the petitioners through his Advocate sent a

reply to the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate on 16

th

December, 2025 and the copy of the said notice was also sent to the

Registrar of the Adjudicating Authority informing that the “Relied Upon

Documents’’ have not been received by the petitioners and thus

requested to provide the documents to the petitioner. On receipt of the

notice, the Registrar of the Adjudicating Authority by an e-mail dated

3

18

th December, 2025, requested the Enforcement Directorate for

necessary action and to submit proof of service of documents. The

Learned Advocate for the petitioners by an email dated 21

st December,

2025, informed the Registrar of the Adjudicating Authority that the

Enforcement Directorate has not complied with the direction and no

documents have been supplied to the petitioner.

4. On 24

th December, 2025, the petitioners have received a copy of

Original Application in PDF file which was signed by the Deputy

Director of the Enforcement Director on 13

th November, 2025. On 24

th

December, 2025, the petitioners received a PDF file being named as

“RUD-1” being copy of the ECIR/KLZO-II/15/2023 dated 11

th May,

2023. The petitioners have further received three (3) PDF files being

“RUD-2A”, “RUD-2B” and “RUD-3” dated 24

th December, 2025.

5. On 4

th January, 2026, the petitioners have sent a legal notice to the

Adjudicating Authority informing that inspite of several requests made

by the petitioner, no records as mandated under Rule 13(2), has been

supplied to the petitioners and requested to extend time to file reply

subject to supply of documents as provided under Rule 13(2) of the

Adjudicating Authority (Procedure) Regulations, 2013. The Adjudicating

Authority has extended the time till 25

th January, 2026. The Learned

Advocate for the petitioners again sent a notice to the Adjudicating

Authority on 5

th January, 2026 informing that the petitioners have not

received documents and requested to extend the time to file reply and

also direct the Enforcement Directorate to supply documents in

4

compliance with the provisions of Rule 13(2) of the Adjudicating

Authority (Procedure) Regulations, 2013.

6. On 23

rd January, 2026, the petitioners have again sent a notice

through his Learned Advocate through email by giving details of the

documents which are the “Relied Upon Documents” but not served to

the petitioners and requested for supply of documents and extension of

time to reply the show cause notice.

7. The petitioners have not received any further document inspite of

request made to the Adjudicating Authority, the petitioners have sent

para wise comments by an email through his Learned Advocate on 25

th

January, 2026, without prejudiced to his rights and contentions with

the request to withdraw the show cause notice dated 25

th November,

2025. The petitioners again on 29

th January, 2026, by an email

through his Learned Advocate informed the Adjudicating Authority to

the “Relied Upon Documents” supplied to the petitioners are actually

not the “Relied Upon Documents” and the Enforcement Directorate

misrepresented by suppressing the original documents and by

misleading have obtained an order of reason to believe.

8. Mr. Raj Mohan Chattoraj, Learned Senior Advocate representing the

petitioners submits that in spite of several requests made by the

petitioner, no “Relied Upon Documents” have been served upon the

petitioners in compliance with Rule 13(2) of the Adjudicating Authority

(Procedure) Regulations, 2013.

5

9. Mr. Chattoraj submits that the petitioners have submitted details of the

documents which the petitioners require for submission of reply to the

show cause notice but the respondents have not supplied the same and

have violated the provisions of Rule 13(2) of the Adjudicating Authority

(Procedure) Regulations, 2013. He submits that the petitioners by an

email dated 23

rd January, 2026, requested the Registrar for inspection

of records of the case and by an email dated 5

th February, 2026, the

Registrar has allowed the inspection of the records on 10

th February,

2026. The petitioners have submitted challan and also applied for

certified copy of the records of the Original Application.

10. Mr. Chattoraj submits that the Original Application received by the

petitioners from the Adjudicating Authority on 24

th December, 2025

from which it reveals that the said application was filed on 13

th

November, 2025, but in the show cause notice dated 27

th November,

2025, it is recorded that the application was filed on 8

th November,

2025. To ascertain the same, the petitioners have applied certified copy

of the same but it was not provided to the petitioner.

11. Mr. Chattoraj in support of his submission, has relied upon the

following judgment:

(i) Natwar Singh vs. Director of Enforcement

and Another reported in (2010) 13 SCC

255.

(ii) Excel Powmin Ltd. vs. Union of India and

Another reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Cal

384.

6

(iii) J. Sekar vs. Union of India and Others

reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Del 13481.

(iv) Naresh Jain vs. Deputy Director

Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi reported

in 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11877.

12. Mr. Dhiraj Trivedi, Learned D.S.G.I representing the Enforcement

Directorate submits that show cause notice was issued to the

petitioners but the petitioners failed to submit any reply to the show

cause notice. He submits that as per Section 8(2) of the PMLA, 2002,

considering the reply, if any, to the notice issued under Section 8(1)

and after hearing the person and the applicant and after taking into

consideration the materials on record, the Adjudicating Authority will

decide whether the properties referred are involved in the money

laundering or not.

13. Mr. Trivedi submits that the petitioners have disclosed that “Relied

Upon Documents” being RUD-1, RUD-2A, RUD-2B and RUD-3 are

served upon the petitioner. He relied upon Sub-Rule (11) of Rule 13 of

the Adjudicating Authority (Procedure) Regulations, 2013 and submits

that the Act provides communication through electronics mode and it

was communicated to the petitioners through PDF by mail and the

same was received by the petitioners but the petitioners have raised the

only contention that as per Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 13 of the Adjudicating

Authority (Procedure) Regulations, 2013, the complete relied upon

documents was not served in a bound paper book.

7

14. Mr. Trivedi submits that as per Rule 15 of the Adjudicating Authority

(Procedure) Regulations, 2013, the petitioners have to file reply before

the date of hearing but the petitioners have not filed any reply. He

further relied upon Rule 21 of the Adjudicating Authority (Procedure)

Regulations, 2013 and submits that the petitioners are at liberty to

examine his witness before the Adjudicating Authority. He submits that

if the petitioners are aggrieved with the order, if any, passed by the

Adjudicating Authority, the petitioners are at liberty to file appeal under

Section 26 of the PMLA, 2002.

15. Mr. Trivedi submits that on 28

th October, 2025 and 29

th October, 2025,

residential premises of the petitioners were searched and seized one

mobile phone having Sim No. 9830025499. The device used by the

petitioners for both personal and business communications was found

to be relevant to ongoing money laundering investigation. He further

submits that an amount of Rs. 3,00,12,000/- in cash was seized from

the office premises of the petitioners and the petitioners claimed that it

was business cash maintained as part of working capital, though the

explanation leaked corroborating of necessity or withdrawn of Rs.

3,00,12,000/-. The petitioners have to show the justification of the said

amount but the petitioners failed to justify the same and accordingly

the matter was referred to the Adjudicating Authority. He further

submits that the Adjudicating Authority has the power to summons,

production of documents and evidences and if the petitioners intent to

produce evidence or any document is required to be produced, the

8

petitioners can take appropriate steps before the Adjudicating Authority

for production of documents and recording of evidences.

16. Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Learned Senior Advocate representing the Union of

India by adopting the submission of Mr. Trivedi submits that the

petitioners can raise all the issues before the Adjudicating Authority as

the authority has all the power to decide the issue, if any, raised by the

petitioners and if the petitioners are aggrieved with the order of the

Adjudicating Authority, the petitioners can prefer an appeal under

Section 26 of the PMLA, 2002.

17. Heard the Learned Counsel for the respective parties, perused the

materials on record and the judgments relied by the petitioner. The

main issue raised by the petitioners in the present writ petition that the

respondents have not supplied the complete “Relied Upon Documents”

in a bound paper book in terms of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 13 of the

Adjudicating Authority (Procedure) Regulations, 2013.

18. Rule 13 of the Adjudicating Authority (Procedure) Regulations, 2013

reads as follows:

“13. Issue of Summons and Notice- (1) Every

summon or notice shall be issued in Form 3 or

Form 4 or Form 5 or Form 6, as the case may

be, and signed by the Registrar or

Administrative Officer.

(2) Every summon and notice shall be served by

the complainant or applicant upon the

defendant or respondent along with complete

relied upon documents in a bound paper book

and an affidavit of service along with proof of

9

service shall be filed by the person affecting

such service.

(3)(a) The service of summon or notice upon the

defendant or respondent may ordinarily be

made by,-

(i) Dasti i.e. delivering or tendering

personally; or

(ii) registered post acknowledgement due

(AD), or by speed post or courier

service; or

(iii) Electronic mail (e-mail) or by fax

message.

(iv) If any summon or notice, when

tendered, is refused or if the person on

whom the summon to be served

refuses to sign an acknowledgment of

service, then the complainant or

applicant shall make a report to this

effect and in such event, such summon

or notice shall be deemed to have been

served.

(4) If for any reason the such summon or notice can

not be served personally, the complainant or

applicant may serve the same by affixing a

copy of the summon on the outer door or some

other conspicuous part of the house or office in

which the defendant/ respondent resides or

carries on business or personally works for

gain, and shall then return the original to the

Registrar or Administrative Officer, with a

report endorsed thereon or annexed thereto

stating that he has so affixed the copy, the

circumstances under which he did so and the

name and address of the person, if any, in

whose presence the copy was affixed and the

Authority issuing the summon or notice shall

in that event declare that the summon has

been duly served on the defendants or

respondents.

(5) Where the notice is to be served upon a

company, corporation or firm, it may be served

upon the Secretary, Director or other principal

officer of the company or corporation at its

registered office or the concerned corporate

10

office or upon the proprietor or partner of the

firm at the address of the firm.

(6) In a proceeding relating to any business or work

against a person who does not reside within

the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority

the service of summon or notice may be made

on any manager or agent, who, at the time of

service, personally carries on such business or

work for such person within such limits, which

shall be deemed good service.

(7) Where the defendant or respondent is confined

in a prison, the summon ornotice shall be

delivered or sent by post or otherwise to the

officer in charge of the prison for service on the

defendant or respondent.

(8) Where the defendant or respondent resides out

of India and has no agent in India empowered

to accept service, the summon shall be

addressed to the defendant or respondent at

the place where he is residing and sent to him

by post or by courier or by email or by fax.

(9) Where the Central Government has, by

notification in the Official Gazette, declared in

respect of any foreign territory that summon or

notice to be served on defendants or

respondents actually and voluntarily residing

or carrying on business or personally working

for gain in that foreign territory may be sent to

an officer of the Government of the foreign

territory specified by the Central Government

the summon or notice may be sent to such

officer, through the Ministry of the Government

of India dealing with foreign affairs or in such

other manner as may be specified by the

Central Government; and if such officer

returns, any such summon or notice with an

endorsement purporting to have been made by

him that the summon or notice has been

served on the defendant, such endorsement

shall be deemed to be evidence of service.

(10) Where a counsel accepts the summon or notice

on behalf of any defendant or respondent and

files, the vakalatnama or authority on his

behalf, service of summon or notice upon such

11

defendant or respondent shall be dispensed

with.

(11) Notwithstanding anything in sub-regulation

(3), a summon or notice may be communicated

through electronic mode as provided in section

13 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21

of 2000) and transmission of such

communication shall be regarded as valid

service.”

19. The allegation against the petitioners are that on 28

th October, 2025,

and 29

th October, 2025, during the search proceeding conducted at the

residential premises of the petitioner, one mobile phone was seized and

cash amount of Rs. 3,00,12,000/- was seized from the office premises

but the petitioners failed to produce any documentary evidence of its

source of the said amount. In his statement, the petitioners stated that

he is the Managing Director of Ms. Radiant Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and

his company is engaged in warehousing and logistic operation. He

admitted to having entered into an agreement dated 1

st August, 2016

with Sri Sujit Bose (MLA), who was paid approximately Rs. 63 lakhs

between 2016 and 2018 for manpower management and Industrial

Relation Consultancy but he has not produced documentary evidence

work performed beyond oral assurances.

20. The petitioners by a letter dated 23

rd January, 2026, requested for

supply of 34 documents. As per the provision of Sub-Section (2) of

Section 13 of the Adjudicating Authority (Procedure) Regulations, 2013,

complete relied upon documents in a bound paper book and an

affidavit of service along with the proof of service has to be filed by the

person affecting such service. Sub-Section 3(iii) that the service of

12

summons or notices can also be served through electronic mail (e-mail)

or by fax massage. In the present case, notice was served upon the

petitioners through email. As per Sub Section 11 of Section 13

summons or notice served through electronic mode as provided under

Section 13 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 has been regarded

as valid service. Thus, there is no doubt that service of notice upon the

petitioners through email is valid.

21. Considering the reply, if any, to the notice issued under Sub-Section 1

of Section 8, after hearing the aggrieved person and the Director or any

other officer authorized and taking into account all the relevant

materials placed on record, the Adjudicating Authority shall record a

finding whether all or any properties referred to in the notice are

involved in money laundering.

22. As per Section 11 of the Act, the Adjudicating Authority shall have the

same powers as vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908. The Adjudicating Authority has the power to allow the

parties for discovery and inspection of documents, enforcing the

attendance of any person, including any officer of a banking company,

and examining him on oath, compelling the production of records,

receiving evidence on affidavits, issuing commission for examination of

witness and documents and any other matter which may be prescribed.

13

23. Rule 16 of the Regulations of 2013 provides for inspection of records

and Rule 21 provides for examination of witness and issuance of

commission.

24. In the present case, the main grievance of the petitioners are that relied

upon documents has not served upon the petitioners, thus, the

petitioners are not a position to give proper reply to the show cause

notice issued under Section 8(1) of the Act. The petitioners are also

apprehending that in the notice dated 20

th February, 2026, it is

mentioned that the Adjudicating Authority has fixed the matter for final

argument on 9

th March, 2026, thus the petitioners will not get any

further opportunity of hearing.

25. In the case of Naresh Jain Vs. Deputy Director of Enforcement

Delhi reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11877 , the Hon’ble Division

Bench of the Delhi High Court held that:

“62. The guidelines of recording the reason to

believe have been laid down in various judgements

of Apex Court and High Courts. It is held time and

again by the said Hon'ble Courts directing that the

approach should be not the subjective satisfaction

of the officer concerned. Such power given to the

officer concerned is not an arbitrary power and has

to be exercised in accordance with the restraints

imposed by law. The belief must be that of an

honest and reasonable person based upon

reasonable grounds, the officer concerned may act

on direct or circumstantial evidence but not on mere

suspicion or the allegations mentioned in the FIR or

charge-sheet so that the same can be scrutinized in

order to verify whether they are relevant and

germane or not.”

14

26. In the present case along with show cause notice recoding of reasons

under Section 8(1) of the PMLA, 2002 by the Adjudicating Authority is

served to the petitioner. In the reasons to believe the Adjudicating

Authority recorded that:

“8. Upon prima facie perusal of the facts, and

upon reviewing the RUDs, it is noted that in relation

to the scheduled offence, the respondents are

involved in the process of money laundering as

defined under section 3 of the PMLA, 2002. The role

of the respondent(s) and the involvement of

movable properties in the form of cash, digital

devices & documents/records seized in the

generation, concealment, layering, or placement of

the proceeds of crime, along with analysis and

investigation, have been mentioned on pages 15-46

of the OA.

9. Since, there is a scheduled offence under

PMLA and the role of the respondents in money

laundering has been described in the application,

therefore, there are prima facie reasons to believe

that M/s. Chinese Quisine Restaurant & Ors. are

involved in the offence of money laundering.

However, the final view shall be taken after

receiving responses from both sides and granting

an opportunity for a hearing to both parties, as per

the schedule mentioned in the show cause notice

u/s 8(1) of the PMLA. Therefore, the prayer made

by the applicant for the retention of movable

properties in the form of cash, digital devices &

documents/records seized during searches

conducted on 10.10.2025, 11.10.2025, 28.10.2025

& 29.10.2025 is justified and needs to be

considered.”

Considering the above, this Court did not find any illegality in

recording the reasons to believe by the Adjudicating Authority.

15

27. In the case of J. Sekar Vs. Union of India & Others reported in 2018

SCC OnLine Del 13481, the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Delhi High

Court held that:

“26. To complete the scheme of the PMLA,

after the provisional attachment order is passed

under Section 5(1) PMLA, the officer making such

order will immediately forward a copy thereof to

the AA in a sealed envelope, as stipulated under

Section 5(2) PMLA.

27. Section 5 (3) PMLA states that the

provisional attachment order shall cease to have

effect on the expiry of the period specified in

Section 5 (1) or on the date when the AA makes an

order under Section 8 (2) PMLA, whichever is

earlier. As already noted, under Section 5(5) PMLA,

the officer making such order must file a complaint

before the AA within 30 days of the order of

provisional attachment being made.

28. As far as the AA is concerned, under

Section 8(1), once such a complaint is received and

if the AA “has a reason to believe that any person

has committed an offence under section 3 or is in

possession of the proceeds of crime”, the AA may

serve a notice (SCN) of not less than 30 days on

such person calling upon him to indicate the

sources of his income, earning or assets or by

means of which he has acquired the property

attached under Section 5(1) PMLA or seized or

frozen under Sections 17 or 18 PMLA.

29. The above SCN would require the noticee

to produce evidence on which he relies and other

relevant information and particulars to show cause

why all or any of the property “should not be

declared to be the properties involved in money-

laundering and confiscated by the Central

Government”.

30. Section 8 (2) requires the AA to consider

the reply to the SCN issued under Section 8(1)

PMLA; to hear the aggrieved person as well as the

16

officer issuing the order of provisional attachment

and also taken to account “all relevant materials

placed on record before the AA”. After following the

above procedure, the AA will record its finding

whether all the properties referred to in the SCN

are involved in money-laundering.

31. If the AA is satisfied that any such

property is in fact involved in money-laundering the

AA will confirm the attachment of such property

and record a finding to that effect. Thereupon, the

attachment of such property will continue during

the pendency of the criminal proceedings. It will

become final after an order of confiscation is

passed either under Section 8(5) or 8(7) PMLA, or

Section 58B PMLA or Section 60(2A) PMLA by the

special court constituted for trial of the offences

under the PMLA. Under Section 8 (4) PMLA, upon

confirmation of the order of provisional attachment,

the Director or other officer authorized by him shall

“forthwith take the possession of property

attached”.

32. Section 8 (5) PMLA states that upon

conclusion of the trial where the special court finds

that the offence of money-laundering has been

committed, it shall order that the property involved

in money-laundering shall stand confiscated to the

Central Government. If it finds to the contrary, then

under Section 8 (6) it shall order the release of the

property to the person entitled to receive it.

33. The order of the AA is subject to appeal

before the Appellate Tribunal (AT) constituted under

Section 25 of the PMLA. Thus, the AA is not the

final authority under the PMLA as far as the

attachment of proceeds of crime is concerned.

Appeals can be filed to the AT both by the Director

and by the person aggrieved by the order of the AA.

The limitation for filing such an appeal under

Section 26(3) PMLA is 45 days from the date on

which a copy of the order of the AA is received.

Section 26(4) envisages the AT giving a hearing to

the parties and passing orders either “confirming,

modifying or setting aside” the order of the AA.

17

34. Against the order of the AT, there is yet

another appeal provided for which is to be made

before the High Court under Section 42 PMLA. This

appeal would be on “any question of law or fact”

arising out of the order of the AT.

35. Chapter VII separately deals with the

Special Courts constituted to try the offences under

the PMLA. The order of the Special Court is subject

to appeal and revision by the High Court under

Section 47 of the PMLA read with the corresponding

provisions of Chapters 29 and 30 of the CrPC, as

the case may be.

36. There are, therefore, two parallel streams

- (i) criminal proceedings before the Special Court

for trial of the offences under Section 3 read with

Section 4 PMLA and; (ii) the departmental

proceedings before the authorities instituted under

the PMLA, i.e. the Director, the AA, and the AT, the

orders of which are subject to appeal before the

High Court.”

28. The Adjudicating Authority issued Show Cause notice to the petitioners

along with the copy of Original Application. The Relied Upon

Documents were also sent to the petitioners through USB by email. The

petitioners are not satisfied with the Relied Upon Documents served

upon the petitioner. The petitioners have submitted his request to the

Adjudicating Authority for supply of further Relied Upon Documents.

By notice dated 23

rd January, 2026, the petitioners have again

requested for supply of Relied Upon Documents and also filed para wise

comments before the Adjudicating Authority without prejudice to thier

rights and contentions.

18

29. This Court finds that the petitioners have filed his para wise comments

to the Adjudicating Authority and also requested for supply of relied

upon documents. It is upon the Adjudicating Authority to decide

whether the documents which have already supplied to the petitioners

are the only “Relied Upon Documents” or the complete “Relied Upon

Documents” are not served upon the petitioner.

30. Considering the above, the writ petition is disposed of with the following

directions:

a. The Adjudicating Authority shall first decide

whether the documents which the petitioners

have requested to supply the same are the

relied upon documents and if the same are

relied upon documents, and not served upon

the petitioners, before taking up the matter for

further hearing to direct the ED to supply the

same to the petitioner within two weeks.

b. If any order is passed for supply of further

relied upon documents to the petitioner, the

petitioners shall be given an opportunity to file

supplementary reply dealing with the further

relied upon documents within two weeks from

the date of supply of documents, if any, by the

E.D.

c. If any of the party is aggrieved with the order of

Adjudicating Authority with respect to supply of

Relied Upon Documents, the parties shall be at

liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance

with Section 26 of the PMLA, 2002.

31. With the above direction, WPA No. 5200 of 2026 is disposed of.

Interim order stands vacated.

Parties shall be entitled to act on the basis of a server copy of the

Judgment placed on the official website of the Court.

19

Urgent Xerox certified photocopies of this judgment, if applied for,

be given to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.

(Krishna Rao, J.)