Statutory remedy for provisional bank account attachment must be pursued before writ interference, including jurisdictional objections.

Rule 159(5) was treated as an efficacious statutory remedy for a person aggrieved by provisional attachment of a bank account under section 83, and the competent authority could examine whether the attachment was justified in law and on facts, including objections going to jurisdiction. Because the challenge required factual examination and the statutory remedy was available, writ interference at that stage was declined. The aggrieved person was directed to seek appropriate relief before the competent authority, which could pass a reasoned order and release the attachment if warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging provisional attachment of the bank account under section 83 could be entertained without first invoking the remedy under rule 159(5), and whether the authority under that rule could examine the legality of the attachment including the objection on jurisdiction.

Analysis: The remedy under rule 159(5) was treated as an efficacious statutory remedy for a person aggrieved by an order of attachment. The challenged attachment required factual examination, and the competent authority could consider whether the action under section 83 was justified in law and on facts and, if warranted, release the attachment by passing a reasoned order. The availability of this remedy justified refusal to interfere in writ jurisdiction at that stage.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained, and the petitioner was directed to approach the competent authority under rule 159(5) for appropriate relief.

---