S/L 15 13.07.2026 Court. No. 25 Sourav WPA 6030 of 2026 Nilesh Parekh @ Nillesh Parekh Vs. Union of India & Ors. Mr. Sarvapriya Mukherjee Mr. Varun Kothari Mr. B. N. Joshi Mr. A. Agarwalla Ms. Priyanka Garain … for the petitioner. Mr. Arijit Chakrabarti Mr. Debsoumya Basak Ms. Swati Kumari Singh … for E.D. Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma Mr. Abhishek Kr. Agrahari Mr. Anindya Kanan Ms. Anukriti Agarwal … for U.O.I. Mr. Jishnu Choudhury, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aman Agarwal Ms. Ritika Dey … for the respondent no. 3. 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ application challenging the order passed by the learned Judge, Special CBI Court No. 1, Calcutta in M.L. Case No. 3 of 2019 wherein the learned Special Judge allowed the petition dated March 4, 2025 filed by the liquidator and the liquidator is permitted to carry out the requisite valuation of the said properties and to auction the same by following the due process of law. The liquidator is also directed to open fixed deposit with the State Bank of India and to deposit the sale proceeds from sale of the assets of the A-1 company in the said fixed deposit, with an intimation to the Court. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent authorities raised preliminary objection with regard to the 2 maintainability of the present writ application. He submits that the petitioner has filed the present writ application challenging the order passed by the criminal court and as such, the writ petition is not maintainable. The respondents have relied upon the judgment in the case of Neeta Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 5761 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that judicial orders passed by civil courts, there cannot be a different standard for judicial orders passed by criminal courts. If a judicial order passed by a civil court cannot be challenged in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a fortiori, a judicial order passed by a criminal court cannot also be challenged in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned counsel for the E.D. submits that as per Section 47 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, appeal and revision are provided and in terms of the said provision, the petitioner has to take appropriate steps in accordance with the said provision. 4. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the materials on record. 5. This Court finds that the petitioner has filed the present writ application challenging the order passed by the learned Special Court dated December 10, 2025 and as such, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeta Singh & Ors. (supra) the writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 3 6. However, the dismissal of the writ petition will not prevent the petitioner for taking appropriate steps before the appropriate court in accordance with law. 7. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all the necessary formalities. (Krishna Rao, J.)