Article 226 Petition Dismissed Due to Pending Appeal: Alternative Remedy Emphasized

The court held that the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution may not be entertained as the petitioner had already filed an appeal under Section 25 before the Appellate Authority, which is better suited to address the petitioner's contentions regarding the provisional attachment order. The court emphasized the availability of an alternative remedy and directed parties to act on the server copy of the order downloaded from the court's official website.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the provisional attachment order under Section 5(1) of the PMLA Act, 2002.
2. Confirmation of the provisional attachment order by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 8(3) of the PMLA Act, 2002.
3. Maintainability of the writ petition in light of the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 25 of the PMLA Act, 2002.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Provisional Attachment Order:
The petitioner challenged the provisional attachment order No. 05/2021 dated 29th October 2021, issued under Section 5(1) of the PMLA Act, 2002, on the grounds that it expired after 180 days without confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority. The petitioner argued that the order "comes to an end and dies a statutory death" upon the expiry of this period.

2. Confirmation of the Provisional Attachment Order:
During the pendency of the writ petition, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the provisional attachment order on 25th July 2021 under Section 8(3) of the PMLA Act. The petitioner raised various arguments challenging the merits and legality of this confirmation.

3. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The primary issue was whether the writ petition should be entertained given the availability of an "efficacious alternative remedy" of an appeal under Section 25 of the PMLA Act, 2002. The court referred to several Supreme Court judgments, including United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon & Ors. and State of H.P. vs. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited & Ors., which emphasized that the High Court should generally refrain from exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution when an alternative remedy is available. The court concluded that while the writ petition is maintainable, it should be "slow to entertain it" due to the effective alternative remedy of appeal.

Conclusion:
The court held that the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not be entertained, especially since the petitioner had already filed an appeal under Section 25 before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority is deemed better equipped to address the petitioner's contentions, including the legality and validity of the Adjudicating Authority's order. The court disposed of WPA No. 11161 of 2023, directing all parties to act on the server copy of the order downloaded from the court's official website.

---