High Court Dismisses Writ Petitions, Petitioners Directed to Supreme Court for Redressal

The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, citing the Supreme Court's oversight of the investigation in the Aircel Maxis Case as a reason for its inability to entertain them. The petitioners were directed to seek redressal from the Supreme Court, leading to the dismissal of related miscellaneous petitions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court can entertain the writ petitions in light of the Supreme Court monitoring the Aircel Maxis Case.
2. Whether the writ petitions are maintainable given the alternative remedies available under the PMLA.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the High Court:
The primary issue was whether the High Court could entertain the writ petitions considering that the Supreme Court was monitoring the Aircel Maxis Case. The respondent argued that the Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No.10660/2010, was overseeing the investigation of the 2G Spectrum Case, Aircel Maxis Case, and Additional Spectrum Case. The Supreme Court had directed that no court should pass any order that might impede the ongoing investigation by the CBI and the Directorate of Enforcement. The High Court acknowledged this directive and noted that the Supreme Court's interim orders explicitly stated that it was monitoring the investigation and receiving periodic reports. Therefore, the High Court concluded that it should not pass any order that could interfere with the investigation, thereby accepting the respondent's preliminary objection.

2. Maintainability of the Writ Petitions:
The second issue was whether the writ petitions were maintainable given the alternative remedies available under the PMLA. The respondent contended that once a property is provisionally attached, an adjudication under Section 8 of the PMLA is required. If the provisional attachment is confirmed, the Director or an authorized officer must take possession of the property. Appeals against such orders can be made to the Appellate Tribunal and subsequently to the High Court. The respondent argued that, given these alternative remedies, the writ petitions were premature. The High Court, however, decided not to delve into this issue, as it had already determined that it could not entertain the writ petitions due to the Supreme Court's oversight of the case.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, concluding that it could not entertain them due to the Supreme Court's ongoing monitoring of the investigation in the Aircel Maxis Case. The petitioners were advised to approach the Supreme Court for redressal of their grievances. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions were also dismissed.

---