Vikram Ravindran Vs The Joint Director

Working as Director in M/s Aakash Baskaran Creative Studios Private Limited Having its registered Office at No.C03/093, DLF Gaden City, Old Mahabalipuram Road (OMR), DLF R, Thazhambur, Chinglepet, Kanchipuram - 600130.

¶19

Petitioner

¶20

Vs

¶21

The Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai Zone-1, Floor No.5 and 6, BSNL Admin Office, Kushkumar Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034.

¶22

Respondents

¶23

PRAYER in WP Crl. No.72 of 2025: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorarifiled mandamus calling for the records pertaining to Authorization No.104/2025 consequent sealing of the premises vide impugned notice/order dated 16.05.2025 by respondent department, quash the same as illegal and direct the respondent department to de-seal the petitioner's residential property at 3rd Floor, New No.58, Old No.72, KG Gayathri Apartments, Poes Garden, Chennai-600 086 and handover the possession to the petitioner.

¶24

PRAYER in WP Crl. No.73 of 2025: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to authorization No.96/2025 consequent sealing of the premises vide impugned notice/order dated 16.05.2025, quash the same as illegal and direct the respondent Department to de-seal the petitioner's office premise at No.C03/093, DLF Garden City, Old Mahabalipuram Road, (OMR), DLF R, Thazambur, Chinglepet, Kanchipuram-600130 and handover the possession to the petitioner.

¶25

_______________ Page 2 of 6_

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

W.P.Crl.Nos.72 and 73 of 2025

¶28

For Petitioner: Mr.K.M.Kalicharan (through Video Conferencing) For Respondent(s):Mr.N.Ramesh Special Public Prosecutor (ED cases)

¶29

COMMON ORDER

¶30

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶31

When these cases were taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the respondent submits that challenge in these writ petitions was to the authorisation letters given for the purposes of conducting search, which was stayed by this court. He would submit that now the respondent is not proceeding to conduct search on the basis of the impugned authorization letters and it has withdrawn the authorisation letters. He would further submit that now cause of action does not survive and these petitions may be disposed of.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after closure of these petitions, the respondent may again proceed to issue fresh authorisation letters and may conduct search in the premises of the petitioner.

¶33

_______________ Page 3 of 6_

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

W.P.Crl.Nos.72 and 73 of 2025

¶36

The cause of action which led to filing of these petitions was

¶37

the authorization letters given by the respondent towards search operations. As a matter of fact, no search happened.

¶38

In view of the statement which has now been made by learned counsel for the respondent that the earlier search authorization letters are not being implemented and in case need arises only fresh authorization letter would be issued, nothing survives for consideration in these petitions and the same are, accordingly, disposed of.

¶39

There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, interim applications stand closed.

¶40

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 11.12.2025 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No sasi

¶41

_______________ Page 4 of 6_

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

W.P.Crl.Nos.72 and 73 of 2025

¶44

To: