Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 – s.17, 2(v) and s.2(w) – The Directorate of Enforcement initiated the proceedings against the appellant under PMLA – In the said process the Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement through the communication dated 15.05.2020 addressed to the Anti Money-Laundering (AML) Officer of Respondents No.1 to 3 Banks instructed them that the accounts maintained by the appellant company be ‘debit freezed/ stop operations’ – Aggrieved, the appellant filed writ petition and sought to quash the communication dated 15.05.2020 issued for debit freezing the account – The High Court upheld the communication dated 15.05.2020 – Before the Supreme Court, appellant pleaded to defreeze the bank accounts for the purpose statutory payments and payment of salaries to the employees – Held: In the instant case, the procedure contemplated u/s.17 of PMLA was not followed by the Officer Authorised – Except issuing the impugned communication dated 15.05.2020 to AML Officer to seek freezing, no other procedure contemplated in law is followed – The said communication does not refer to the belief of the Authorised Officer – It only states that the Officer is investigating the case and seeks relevant document – Thereafter, it abruptly states that accounts have to be ‘debit freezed/stop operations’ – However, what is necessary is an order in the file recording the belief as provided u/ s. 17(1) of PMLA before the communication is issued and thereafter the requirement of s.17(2) of PMLA after the freezing is complied with – No material placed to indicate compliance of s.17 of PMLA, more particularly recording the belief of commission of the act of money laundering and placing it before the Adjudicating Authority or for filing an application after securing the freezing of the account – Therefore, freezing is without due compliance of the legal requirement and not sustainable – The communication dated 15.05.2020 is quashed – Since, the freezing was done without due compliance of law, the respondents directed to defreeze the accounts and honour payments advised by the appellant towards statutory dues etc. Interpretation of Statutes – If a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner alone and in no other manner – If the salutary principle is kept in perspective, in the instant case, though the Authorised Officer in Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 is vested with sufficient power; such power is circumscribed by a procedure laid down under the statute – As such the power is to be exercised in that manner alone, failing which it would fall foul of the requirement of complying due process under law. Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 – Scheme and object of – discussed.