Panchkula, May 15 -- The enforcement directorate (ED) has moved the Punjab and Haryana high court challenging a Panchkula court order discharging suspended former CBI judge Sudhir Parmar and four others in a corruption case. The petition is likely to be taken up for hearing by the HC next week. Last month, a Panchkula court discharged Sudhir Parmar and four others, including real estate representatives Roop Bansal of M3M, Lalit Goyal of IREO, Anil Bhalla of the Vatika Group and Ajay Parmar, nephew of the suspended judicial officer. All the grounds of challenge are not immediately clear, but officials privy to the development said the petition mainly hinges on "procedural lacunas" in the discharge proceedings, including that same were conducted by the trial court like a "mini-trial". A "procedural lacuna" refers to a legal flaw, gap, or technical omission in the process followed by the court. Parmar, who was then holding charge of the special CBI and PMLA courts in Panchkula was suspended following registration of a case by anti-corruption bureau (ACB), Haryana. He was arrested by the ED in August 2023, but was later granted bail in November 2023. Initially, the ACB had registered an FIR on April 17, 2023 under Sections 7, 8, 11 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act along with Section 120-B of the IPC against Sudhir Parmar and others. The FIR alleged that the then special judge in Panchkula had connections with the M3M and IREO groups and extended undue benefits to them in exchange for illegal gratification. Based on the FIR, the ED registered an enforcement case information report (ECIR) on June 13, 2023, and subsequently filed a prosecution complaint in August 2023 under Sections 44 and 45 of the PMLA against seven accused persons. Consequent upon relief to Parmar and others in the criminal case, they had sought dropping the ED proceedings before the special court arguing that they had been discharged in the predicate offence. However, during the resumed hearing on May 12, the PMLA court deferred the hearing on ED's request observing that since the ED has filed a petition before the HC, it would be appropriate to adjourn the proceedings while awaiting directions from the HC, if any. Earlier, the ED in the application had sought deferment of further proceedings, stating that it had challenged the discharge order before the HC. The counsels from the accused side had opposed ED's assertions citing several Supreme Court and HC judgments submitting that since the accused persons had already been discharged in the predicate offence, proceedings in the money laundering complaint could not continue. The defence counsel had on April 28 cited the case titled assistant director, Directorate of Enforcement versus The Associated Journals Ltd where the special PMLA court on April 3 had closed the proceedings on account of discharge of former Haryana chief minister, Bhupinder Singh Hooda in the main case. The court was of the view that PMLA proceedings can be started again, if main case is revived....