The Punjab and Haryana high court on Wednesday sought response from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on a plea from the Punjab government challenging the federal agency’s survey conducted last month and demanding that all original records be returned and contents of the records and data seized from the officers be not shared with the media.
Acting on the plea from the Punjab government filed though under secretary, department of housing and urban development, Punjab, and nodal officer of the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA), the high court bench of chief justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and justice Deepak Kapoor has asked the ED to respond by October 28.
The ED raid started on September 23 and continued till September 25 afternoon. The money-laundering investigation was linked to Tirupati Infra projects for alleged irregularities in land acquisition, auctions, masterplan changes and concessions granted to private developers by GMADA. After the completion of searches, the ED claimed that manipulation of reserve prices of unsold land could have resulted in a potential loss of nearly ₹10,000 crore to GMADA and the Punjab government.
The plea says GMADA headquarters and its offices were occupied for about 50 hours, their floors sealed, records carried away in more than 30 bags, computers and devices of officers copied and cloned and their senior officers kept in their offices night after night without any basis. “All this was later sought to be justified by a public statement of the respondents on the strength of scheduled offence registered by the CBI against the promoters of a private company, in which neither the petitioners nor any of their officers is an accused,” the plea said, arguing that the survey (raids) were illegal and contrary to the mandate of law as the proceeds of an alleged bank fraud by the promoters of a private company have no connection with the statutory functions of the petitioners.
{{/usCountry}}The plea says GMADA headquarters and its offices were occupied for about 50 hours, their floors sealed, records carried away in more than 30 bags, computers and devices of officers copied and cloned and their senior officers kept in their offices night after night without any basis. “All this was later sought to be justified by a public statement of the respondents on the strength of scheduled offence registered by the CBI against the promoters of a private company, in which neither the petitioners nor any of their officers is an accused,” the plea said, arguing that the survey (raids) were illegal and contrary to the mandate of law as the proceeds of an alleged bank fraud by the promoters of a private company have no connection with the statutory functions of the petitioners.
{{/usCountry}}It alleged the official servers and devices so copied hold the personal and financial data of thousands of citizens, allottees and landowners, held by the petitioners in trust, and unpublished official records of the state. Further, personal data of an officer was also taken without associating anyone with the exercise, it stated.
The plea demands that the entire record that became the basis for search and seizure operation and authorisation for the same be called including the audio and video recording of the entire exercise. It also seeks details of seizures and search panchnama etc. in respect of all the offices and demands that the survey be declared without jurisdiction, “there being no live, causal or proximate nexus between the scheduled offence ..and the petitioners”. It also demands a declaration from the court that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act does not allow sealing of the premises of statutory authority or to require any person to remain on any premises beyond office hours.
It further pleaded for restraining the ED from accessing documents and all computers, hard discs, servers and devices etc seized in survey and the return or destruction of all data not relatable to the scheduled offence.
During the hearing, additional solicitor general Satya Pal Jain, who appeared for the ED, questioned the maintainability of the proceedings and said that the state government had no locus standi to challenge the proceedings as those individuals affected by it are not before the court.