Petition challenging Adjudicating Authority's order dismissed, emphasizing right to appeal. Follow statutory mechanisms.

The Court dismissed the petition challenging the Adjudicating Authority's order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2005, regarding the authority of a single technical member to hear cases and pass attachment orders. It emphasized the Petitioner's right to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 26 of the Act, directing them to do so and refraining from assessing the case's merits. The Court underscored the importance of following statutory mechanisms and cautioned against invoking writ jurisdiction prematurely.

---

---

Issues:
The issue involves the challenge to an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2005, questioning the authority of a single technical member to hear cases and pass attachment orders.

Judgment Details:

Issue 1: Authority of Adjudicating Authority
The Petitioner challenged the order of the Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA Act, 2005, arguing that a single technical member cannot hear cases and pass attachment orders. Reference was made to a judgment of the Telangana High Court, highlighting the quasi-judicial nature of the Adjudicating Authority's functions. The Court considered previous decisions and noted that the order under challenge was a final attachment order. The Respondent submitted that an appeal had been filed before the Tribunal, while the Petitioner claimed a violation of principles of natural justice.

Issue 2: Appellate Tribunal Jurisdiction
The Court referred to Section 26 of the PMLA Act, which allows any person aggrieved by an order to approach the Appellate Tribunal. It was emphasized that the Petitioner, as a person aggrieved, had the right to challenge the attachment order before the Appellate Tribunal. Citing a recent Supreme Court decision, the Court stressed the need to follow statutory mechanisms and exercise caution in invoking writ jurisdiction. The Court directed the Petitioner to approach the Appellate Tribunal under Section 26 of the Act, dismissing the petition with liberty to do so and clarifying that the Court had not assessed the merits of the case.

This summary encapsulates the key issues and details of the judgment, highlighting the legal arguments, statutory provisions, and the Court's directions for further action.

---