$~17

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 984/2015

M/S. QUANTUM SECRUITIES

PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. P.V. Kapur, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Dinkar Singh, Adv.

versus

THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR.

..... Respondents
Through Mr. Kamal Kant Jha, Sr. Panel
Counsel & Kavindra Gill (GP) with
Mr. Sandeep Thadpaliyal for ED/R-1.
Mr. Jayant Mehta, Mr. Anuj Shah,
Mr. Rishav Sharma and Mr. Nishant
Varun, Advs. for R-3 & 4.
Mr. N.P. Sahni, Special Counsel with
Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Sr. Standing
Counsel for Income Tax
Department/R-5 & 6.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

ORDER
% 08.02.2018
1. The matter has been heard for some time. Mr. P.V. Kapur, ld. Senior
Counsel appearing for the petitioner insists that this court should continue to
monitor the investigation carried on by the statutory authorities which
includes the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Income Tax Department.
2. In particular, Mr. Kapur stresses upon the fact that the assertions
made in paragraph 4.1 and 4.2 of the writ petition need to be investigated.
In this behalf, Mr. Kapur relies upon the order passed by this court on
31.10.2017.
3. On the other hand, Mr.Jayant Mehta, learned counsel for respondent
nos. 3 and 4 submits that the prayer made in the writ petition for “continuing
mandamus” is untenable in the facts of the instant case. According to Mr.
Mehta, the power of continuing mandamus is used in rare cases where there
is sloth displayed in investigations on part of the concerned authorities. It is
the learned counsel’s submission that since investigations have been
triggered against respondent nos.3 and 4 and other persons/ entities, the
court should allow the investigating agency to come to conclusion as is
mandated under law. The petitioner cannot, according to Mr. Mehta, by
keeping the petition alive, drive the investigation in a particular direction.
3.1. Mr. Mehta says that neither do respondent nos.3 and 4 have, nor can
they have, an objection to a fair and impartial investigation.
4. Learned counsel who appears for ED says that the investigation is on
the right track. For this purpose, counsel for the ED relies on four reports
submitted in sealed cover, today, to the court. As a matter of fact, learned
counsel for ED and the officer concerned i.e., Mr. Sandeep Thapliyal,
Assistant Director of ED, who is present in court, says that two cases have
been registered against the respondent nos.3 and 4; one, under FEMA and
the other under PMLA.
4.1 It is the submission of counsel for ED and its Assistant Director that
the broad accusation against respondent no. 3 is that it has round-tripped a
sum of Rs.2030 crores.
4.2 I am further informed that a show cause notice has been issued on that
basis.
4.3 Insofar as PMLA case is concerned, learned counsel for the ED and
its Assistant Director say that it could only get triggered, if an agency, other
than ED, had found that respondent no.3 and 4 had infracted the law. It is
therefore, submitted that there is no procrastination in carrying on
investigation by ED as alleged or at all.
4.4. The registration of FIR by ED being FIR No.2172017A0009, on
2.6.2017 is explained accordingly.
4.5. The emphasis, therefore, is that PMLA case could therefore, get
triggered only after the CBI had registered a case. Therefore, according to
learned counsel for the ED and the Assistant Director, there has not been as
much delay as suggested by counsel for the petitioner.
5. I have queried counsel for the ED and the Assistant Director with
regard to the prayer made in the writ petition concerning court monitored
investigation. Both Counsel for the ED and the Assistant Director, ED, on
instructions, say that since the investigations are on track the writ petition
can be closed.
6. Mr. Sahni, who appears for the Income Tax Department says that re-
opening of the assessment is under challenge before superior forums and
therefore, the Income Tax Department cannot proceed any further as of
now. According to Mr. Sahni, the Income Tax Department has acted as
mandated in law.
7. I must note what Mr. Kapoor said during the course of his
submissions, which is, while the petitioner is satisfied with the manner in
which the Income Tax Department has proceeded in the matter, his
grievance for the present obtains vis-a-vis the ED.
8. Having heard the contentions of counsel for the parties at some
length, I deem it fit to direct the ED to put on record as to whether
statements of all persons whose names have come up in the investigation
have been recorded.
9. Learned counsel and for the ED and the Assistant Director, ED, has
drawn my attention to one of the reports submitted for perusal of the Court,
which is suggestive of fact that statements of Directors of respondents no.3
and 4 have been recorded.
10. Since, summons were issued also to the Director of one of the
companies of Reliance and the Branch Manager of the ICICI Bank, I have
asked the counsel for ED and the Assistant Director, ED to file an updated
report qua this part as well. In other words, all those who have come under
the scanner, their statements will be recorded and concomitant steps, will be
taken, as mandated in law.
11. Needful will be done within three weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of the order.
12. The reports, which were submitted to this court in sealed covers, are
returned to Mr. Sandeep Thapliyal, Assistant Director, ED, who will bring
these reports to court on the next date of hearing along with an updated
report as indicated above.
13. Furthermore, counsels are also requested to file their short written
submissions, not exceeding three pages, before the next date of hearing.
14. Renotify the matter on 27.4.2017.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
FEBRUARY 08, 2018
mk