M.Sarada vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court noted the submissions made by both parties. The petitioner had challenged the provisional attachment order on the grounds of expiry of the statutory period. The respondent authorities, however, stated that they were taking steps to de-freeze the petitioner's account. In light of the respondent's statement that the account was being de-frozen, the Court considered the matter resolved. The Court recorded the statement made by the respondent authorities and, consequently, closed the writ petition. No specific finding was made on the legal validity of the attachment order concerning the expiry of the statutory period, as the issue was rendered infructuous by the proposed action of the respondents. The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding the expired statutory period.

Facts

The petitioner, M. Sarada, filed a writ petition challenging a provisional attachment order dated 08.02.2024, concerning her bank account. The petitioner contended that the attachment order should be set aside as the statutory period of one year had expired. The respondent authorities, represented by the Standing Counsel for CBIC, stated that steps were being taken to de-freeze the petitioner's current account. The Court was informed of these developments.

Key Issues

1. Whether the provisional attachment of the petitioner's bank account is liable to be set aside on the ground that the statutory period of one year has expired, as provided under the relevant statute? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the provisional attachment order, issued on 08.02.2024, should be invalidated because the statutory one-year period for such attachment has elapsed. Respondent's contention: The respondent authorities, through the Standing Counsel for CBIC, submitted that they were in the process of de-freezing the petitioner's current account, implying that the issue was being addressed and resolved.