Writ jurisdiction and alternative remedy bar challenge to provisional attachment under money laundering law

Writ petitions challenging provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act were not maintainable where the petitioners had already raised factual and legal objections before the competent Adjudicating Authority. The attachment disclosed no lack or excess of jurisdiction, and no breach of natural justice or exceptional circumstance was shown to justify bypassing the statutory adjudication mechanism. The HC therefore declined to exercise writ jurisdiction and left all issues open for decision by the Adjudicating Authority in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions challenging the provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were maintainable in view of the statutory adjudication mechanism and the availability of an effective alternative remedy.

Analysis: The petitioners had already raised factual and legal objections before the Adjudicating Authority, which is empowered to examine the matter on merits. The provisional attachment did not suffer from lack or excess of jurisdiction, and no violation of natural justice or extraordinary circumstance was shown to justify bypassing the statutory remedy. The Court therefore declined to exercise writ jurisdiction, leaving all issues open for consideration by the Adjudicating Authority in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not entertainable and were rejected in favour of the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory remedy is available before a competent adjudicating authority, writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be exercised absent jurisdictional error, breach of natural justice, or other exceptional circumstances.

---