Writ jurisdiction and provisional attachment under PMLA: statutory remedies prevailed, and bank restraint was not struck down.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was held inappropriate where the Prevention of Money Laundering Act provided efficacious statutory remedies, including appeal before the Adjudicating Authority and further challenge before the Appellate Tribunal. Because the provisional attachment had already been confirmed, the petitioners were left to pursue the statutory appellate route. On provisional attachment, the Court accepted that Section 5(1) permits attachment on recorded reasons to believe based on material in possession, including urgent action under the second proviso, and rejected objections based on absence of search and the timing of scheduled offences. The attachment and bank restraints were not shown to be jurisdictionally invalid.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petitions were maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India despite the statutory remedies under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. (ii) Whether the provisional attachment and the consequential restraint on bank transactions were vitiated for want of jurisdiction, absence of search, and the objection that the scheduled offences and the second proviso to Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could not apply.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petitions were maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India despite the statutory remedies under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The complaint under Section 5(5) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 had already been filed and the provisional attachment order had been confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority. The statutory scheme provided a remedy of appeal under Section 26 and a further remedy under Section 42. The challenge raised by the petitioner concerned matters that could be urged before the Adjudicating Authority or the Appellate Tribunal. In that background, invocation of writ jurisdiction was held to be inappropriate.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable on account of the availability of efficacious statutory remedies and the confirmation of the attachment order.

Issue (ii): Whether the provisional attachment and the consequential restraint on bank transactions were vitiated for want of jurisdiction, absence of search, and the objection that the scheduled offences and the second proviso to Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could not apply.

Analysis: Section 5(1) authorises provisional attachment where the authorised officer has reason to believe, on the basis of material in possession, that a person is in possession of proceeds of crime and that non-attachment is likely to frustrate confiscation proceedings. The Court held that the second proviso permits attachment where immediate action is necessary, and that the concept of continuing offence makes the provision applicable even to property acquired earlier. The objections based on the absence of search and the timing of inclusion of offences in the schedule were not accepted as grounds to invalidate the action in writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The attachment and the related bank restrictions were not shown to be illegal or jurisdictional basis warranting interference under Article 226.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the Enforcement Directorate's action failed, and the petitioner was left to pursue the statutory appellate remedy against the confirmed attachment.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute provides a complete adjudicatory and appellate mechanism under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and the provisional attachment has been confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority, writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be exercised to bypass those remedies; the power of provisional attachment turns on recorded reasons to believe based on material in possession and may operate on property linked to continuing money-laundering activity.

---