Manik Bhattacharya vs Ramesh Malik

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.154274 OF 2022 AND INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.154275 OF 2022 IN SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 16325­16326 OF 2022

DR. MANIK BHATTACHARYA …..PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

RAMESH MALIK AND OTHERS …..RESPONDENT(S)

ORDER

1. These two applications have been taken out by the

petitioner in connection with Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.

16325­16326 of 2022. In these Special Leave Petitions, the

petitioner has questioned legality of an order of a Division Bench

of the High Court at Calcutta sustaining a series of orders passed

by a Single Judge on 13th, 15th, 17th, 20th and 21st June 2022 in

two Writ petitions, registered as 9979 of 2022 and 7097 of 2019.

The controversy relates to allegations of illegalities in recruitment

Signature Not Verified of primary school teachers through the Teachers Eligibility Test, Digitally signed by NIRMALA NEGI

2014. In these orders several directions were given against the Date: 2022.10.20 15:36:47 IST Reason:

petitioner herein, including directing the Central Bureau of

1 | Page Investigation (CBI) to start interrogation of the petitioner and in

the event the petitioner (and certain other persons) did not

cooperate with the CBI was given the liberty to interrogate them

after taking them into custody. This set of orders passed between

13th June 2022 and 21st June 2022 were carried in appeal by the

petitioner as well as other authorities before a Division Bench of

the High Court. The Division Bench, in substance, sustained

these orders.

2. When the Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal was heard

by this Court on 27th September 2022, notice was issued and in

the SLPs in connection with which these IAs have been taken out,

it was directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the

petitioner till 28th September 2022. This protection has

subsequently been continued.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner had mentioned before

us on 12th October 2022 that the petitioner was arrested on 10 th

October 2022 by the Enforcement Directorate. These two IAs

were filed on 12th October 2022 itself, being I.A. No.154274 of

2022 for impleading the Directorate of Enforcement as a party­

respondent to the present Special Leave Petitions and I.A.

No.154275 of 2022 for declaring the arrest of the petitioner as

illegal. Such arrest was made by the Enforcement Directorate on

2 | Page the basis of Enforcement Case Information Report under No.

KLZ0­II/19/2022 (ECIR).

4. We heard the above two applications on 18 th October 2022.

Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner

argued that when the latter was under the protective cover of the

order passed by this Court, his arrest by the Enforcement

Directorate was illegal, being in violation of that Order of this

Court. His submission has been that the protection granted by

this Court was in relation to a particular offence and the

Enforcement Directorate had arrested him in relation to the same

offence, which was unwarranted.

5. Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General appeared in

these matters on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate and his

submission is that in the Writ Petitions, out of which the present

proceedings arise, Enforcement Directorate was not a party. The

Order of this Court, giving interim protection to the petitioner

from coercive steps, was based in the backdrop of the direction of

the Single Judge issued on CBI to investigate into the allegations

of irregularities pertaining to the recruitment of primary teachers

and observations of the Single Judge that CBI could interrogate

the petitioner and also arrest him in case of his non­cooperation.

His case is that the Enforcement Directorate had initiated an

3 | Page independent investigation into money­laundering allegations

based on the aforesaid ECIR against one Chandan Mondal @

Ranjan and unknown office bearers of the West Bengal Board of

Primary Education and others.

6. In an affidavit filed on behalf of the Enforcement

Directorate affirmed by one Devranjan Mishra on 17 th October

2022, a copy of the remand application of the Enforcement

Directorate has been annexed. We find in this application, there

is broad reference to the allegations which are being investigated

by the CBI. Enforcement Directorate’s case, however, is that

various incriminating documents were seized during the course of

the search conducted at the premises of the petitioner and

evidence has surfaced as regards the role of the petitioner in

money­laundering activities and proceeds of crime.

7. We cannot hold the arrest of the petitioner by the

Enforcement Directorate illegal as the issue of money­laundering

or there being proceeds of crime had not surfaced before the

Single Judge or the Division Bench of the High Court. Before us,

however, it had been brought to our notice by Mr. Rohatgi in

course of hearing on the question of interim order passed in the

instant special leave petitions, that the petitioner had been

cooperating with investigation by the Enforcement Directorate

4 | Page and the CBI. While testing the legality of an arrest made by an

agency otherwise empowered to take into custody a person

against whom such agency considers subsistence of prima facie

evidence of money­laundering, we do not think a general

protective order directed at another investigating agency could

have insulated the petitioner from any coercive action in another

proceeding started by a different agency, even if there are factual

similarities vis­a­vis the allegations. Under The Prevention of

Money­Laundering Act, 2002 (“2002 Act”), money­ laundering is

an independent offence and in the event there is any allegation of

the Enforcement Directorate having acted beyond jurisdiction or

their act of arrest is not authorized by law, the petitioner would be

entitled to apply before the appropriate Court of law

independently. But that question could not be examined in a

Special Leave Petition arising from the proceedings in which the

question of Money Laundering were not involved.

8. In the present Special Leave Petitions, having regard of this

scope and nature of the proceedings, we are not inclined to go

into the legality of the question of invoking the provisions of the

2002 Act in arresting the petitioner. We are also satisfied that the

order restraining coercive action being taken against the

petitioner passed by us on 27th September 2022, which we have

5 | Page still directed to continue, did not operate to prevent the

Enforcement Directorate from carrying on with their investigation

into the allegations under the 2002 Act.

9. For the reasons that we have stated above, we are not

inclined to add the Enforcement Directorate as a party in the

present petitions. The grievance of the petitioner against the

Enforcement Directorate would have to be ventilated

independently before the appropriate forum. We do not accept

the argument of the petitioner that his arrest was illegal because

of the interim order passed by us. We make it clear that we have

not delved into the question of legality of the petitioner’s arrest or

initiation of proceeding against him under the 2002 Act.

10. Both the applications shall accordingly stand dismissed,

without any order as to costs.

………………………………. J.

(ANIRUDDHA BOSE)

………………………………. J.

(VIKRAM NATH) NEW DELHI;

20th October 2022

6 | Page