Writ Petition Dismissed: Provisional Attachment Under Money Laundering Act Stands; Alternative Remedies Advised.

The HC dismissed the writ petition seeking to quash the provisional attachment order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The court emphasized the necessity of exhausting alternative remedies provided by the Act. The petitioner was advised to pursue available legal channels to contest the attachment, as their property rights were not immediately endangered. The interim relief previously granted was also terminated.

---

---

Issues involved: Petition seeking quashment of order and mandamus regarding interference with property enjoyment; Question of maintainability of writ petition under Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

Summary:
The petitioner sought to quash an order and prevent interference with their property, a two-storeyed residential house. The respondents argued that the writ petition may not be maintainable under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act due to the availability of other remedies. The court noted that while Article 226 of the Constitution provides wide powers, it is subject to restrictions, including the availability of other efficacious remedies.

The case background involved a provisional attachment order issued by respondent No. 3 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, based on alleged money laundering activities involving the petitioner's son. A corrigendum was later issued, attaching the property due to cash credit extended to the petitioner's family member. The petitioner challenged this corrigendum through the instant petition.

The petitioner argued that they were not connected to the offense and questioned the jurisdiction of the attachment order. The respondents contended that the attachment was provisional and could be challenged through proper channels, including showing innocence before the authorities and appealing decisions. The court found merit in the respondent's arguments, emphasizing the importance of following the procedures outlined in the Act and availing the available remedies.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner should utilize the avenues provided under the Act to address their grievances. It was clarified that the petitioner's right to enjoy the attached property was not under immediate threat as per the Act. The interim direction was also declared to cease operation.

---