Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:7588-DB Court No. - 9 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1015 of 2025 Petitioner :- Asif Naseem Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manuvendra Singh,Arvind Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Rohit Tripathi Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J. 1. We have heard Sri Ashish Deep Verma, the learned counsel for the petitioner for substantial length of time. 2. A preliminary objection was raised by Sri Kuldeep Srivastava, Advocate appearing for respondent No.2, that the petitioner will have sufÏcient opportunity to present his side of the case before the Special Court, as the Special Court has only issued a notice under Rule 3A of the Prevention of Money Laundering (Restoration of Confiscated Property) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules of 2016) and no order has been passed as yet. 3. The counsel for respondent No.2 has also pointed out that the order under challenge has been passed only by accepting the application moved under Section 8(7) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and that the restoration of the property of the claimant shall be done only after the owner of the property has been heard under Rule 3A of the Rules of 2016, and that all such matters have been listed before the court concerned on 11.02.2025. 4. It has also been pointed out that the petitioner has no locus to challenge the order dated 11.12.2024, and his locus would arise only after notices are issued, and he submits his reply, and a final order is passed by the Special Court with regard to the restoration of the claimant's property after an auction is ordered of the property of the petitioner in pursuance thereof. 5. The counsel for the petitioner, however, has insisted that the order dated 11.12.2024 is final in nature. 6. This Court had made a specific query to the counsel for the petitioner as to how he got notice of the order dated 11.12.2024 when he has specifically argued that no notice has been issued to the petitioner till date under Rule 3A of the Rules of 2016. The counsel for the petitioner has referred to the grounds of the writ petition, but we find that there is absence of pleadings in this regard.It is a well-known practice of this Court that the grounds are signed only by the counsel who has drafted the petition. It is the pleadings which are signed by the petitioner. Since the petitioner has not made any pleadings in any paragraphs relating to non-service of notice under Rule 3A of the Rules of 2016 and the counsel for the respondent No.2 has specifically raised this fact that Asif Naseem, the petitioner, is in Central jail, Varanasi and he could not have got hold of the application made by the Enforcement Directorate, a copy of which has been filed at page No.93 onwards, without it being served upon him in Central Jail, Varanasi, we find that the case set up by the petitioner does not require any interference from us. 7. It is, accordingly, dismissed as such. (Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.) (Sangeeta Chandra, J.) Order Date :- 6.2.2025 cks/- Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench