Alternative statutory remedy bars writ challenge; PMLA provisional attachment can proceed without prior notice or pre-hearing.

Writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not invoked where an efficacious statutory appeal is available under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and challenges to provisional attachment or confirmation orders should be taken before the appellate forum. The commentary also notes that provisional attachment under Section 5(1) may be made on reason to believe that proceeds of crime may be concealed, transferred, or dealt with so as to frustrate confiscation, and that the provision does not require prior notice or a pre-attachment hearing. The adjudicatory scheme under Section 8 allows affected persons to place their materials before the statutory authority.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petitions challenging the provisional attachment and confirmation orders were maintainable despite the statutory appellate remedy under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. (ii) Whether the provisional attachment and adjudicatory process under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 required prior notice or hearing to the petitioner before the impugned orders were passed.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petitions challenging the provisional attachment and confirmation orders were maintainable despite the statutory appellate remedy under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The statutory scheme provided an appeal under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Court applied the settled rule that writ jurisdiction is not ordinarily exercised when an efficacious alternative remedy is available, except in exceptional cases such as gross injustice or a clear violation of natural justice. The challenge raised questions that could be examined on merits by the appellate authority on the basis of the record and materials.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable in view of the available appellate remedy, and the petitioner was required to pursue the statutory appeal.

Issue (ii): Whether the provisional attachment and adjudicatory process under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 required prior notice or hearing to the petitioner before the impugned orders were passed.

Analysis: Section 5(1) permits provisional attachment on the basis of reason to believe that proceeds of crime are likely to be concealed, transferred, or dealt with in a manner frustrating confiscation proceedings, and the provision does not contemplate prior notice before attachment. The adjudicatory framework under Section 8 permits affected persons to place their materials before the appropriate forum, and a person claiming an interest in the property may seek relief through the statutory mechanism.

Conclusion: No prior notice or pre-attachment hearing was required at the stage of provisional attachment, and the petitioner's grievance did not warrant interference in writ jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the attachment orders was left to the statutory appellate forum, and the writ petitions failed on maintainability.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute provides an efficacious appellate remedy, writ jurisdiction should not be invoked as a matter of course, and provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 may be ordered on reason to believe without prior notice.

---