Court Upholds Compliance with PMLA, Dismisses Writ Petitions

The court dismissed the Writ Petitions, upholding the compliance of provisional attachment and show cause notices with the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). It emphasized the availability of effective alternative remedies under PMLA and advised the petitioners to pursue those remedies rather than approaching the High Court prematurely. The court rejected arguments regarding the composition of the Adjudicating Authority, non-application of mind by authorities, and violation of principles of natural justice.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Recording of reasons for provisional attachment under Section 5(1) of PMLA.
2. Validity of show cause notices under Section 8(1) of PMLA.
3. Violation of principles of natural justice.
4. Composition of Adjudicating Authority under Section 6(2) of PMLA.
5. Maintainability of Writ Petitions due to alternative remedies.
6. Non-application of mind by authorities.
7. Adverse inference due to non-production of documents.
8. Inclusion of illegal quarrying as a scheduled offence under PMLA.
9. Competence of Adjudicating Authority in understanding vernacular language.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue Nos. (i) to (iii):
- The petitioners contended that the first respondent did not record reasons for provisional attachment under Section 5(1) of PMLA, which is mandatory. The Adjudicating Authority also failed to record reasons while issuing show cause notices under Section 8(1) of PMLA, violating principles of natural justice.
- The court emphasized that 'recording of reasons' is crucial under Section 5(1) and Section 8(1) of PMLA. The requirement of recording reasons is to ensure transparency and fairness in the process.
- The court referred to multiple judgments, including those of the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court, which held that reasons must be meaningful and not just a formality. The court noted that the reasons must reflect the material on which the belief is based and should be communicated to the affected party.

Issue No. (iv):
- The petitioners argued that the Adjudicating Authority should consist of a Chairperson and two other Members as per Section 6(2) of PMLA. The current composition with only one Member is coram non judice.
- The court examined Section 6 of PMLA and concluded that it allows for the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority to be exercised by Benches, which may consist of one or two Members. The court referred to the Delhi High Court's decision, which upheld the validity of single-member benches under PMLA.

Issue No. (v):
- The petitioners contended that the Writ Petitions are maintainable despite the availability of alternative remedies under PMLA.
- The court referred to several judgments, including those of the Supreme Court, which held that the existence of alternative remedies does not bar the High Court from exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 in cases of violation of fundamental rights, failure of natural justice, or lack of jurisdiction.
- The court noted that the petitioners have multiple effective remedies under PMLA, including appeals to the Adjudicating Authority, the Appellate Tribunal, and further appeal to the High Court. Therefore, the Writ Petitions were not maintainable.

Issue No. (vi):
- The petitioners argued that the action initiated by the authorities under PMLA suffers from non-application of mind.
- The court examined the provisional attachment order and found that it contained detailed reasons and material justifying the action. The court held that the petitioners could raise their objections before the Adjudicating Authority.

Issue No. (vii):
- The petitioners contended that the court should draw an adverse inference against the respondents for non-production of documents when Rule Nisi was issued.
- The court held that the primary issue was the maintainability of the Writ Petitions, not the production of documents. Therefore, the argument was not relevant in this context.

Issue No. (viii):
- The petitioners argued that illegal quarrying is not a scheduled offence under PMLA.
- The court noted that the petitioners were charged with various offences under IPC and the Explosives Substance Act, which are scheduled offences under PMLA. Therefore, the argument was without merit.

Issue No. (ix):
- The petitioners contended that the Adjudicating Authority's lack of familiarity with the vernacular language (Tamil) would affect the appreciation of transactions documented in Tamil.
- The court dismissed this argument, stating that documents can be translated, and lack of familiarity with the language does not constitute a valid ground for challenging the proceedings.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the Writ Petitions, holding that the provisional attachment and show cause notices were in compliance with PMLA. The court emphasized that the petitioners have effective alternative remedies under PMLA and should pursue those remedies instead of approaching the High Court at the preliminary stage. The court also rejected the arguments regarding coram non-judice, non-application of mind, and violation of principles of natural justice.

---