Court Dismisses Writ Petitions on Money Laundering Orders; Emphasizes Alternate Remedies

The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging orders under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. It emphasized the availability of an alternate remedy through the Appellate Tribunal and cited precedents highlighting exceptions to the alternate remedy rule. The court noted the limitation period for approaching the Appellate Tribunal and left the decision on time exclusion to the Tribunal. The writ petitions were closed, allowing the petitioners to pursue remedies before the Appellate Tribunal, with no costs awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Communication and timing of the impugned order.
2. Availability and applicability of alternate remedy.
3. Exceptions to the alternate remedy rule.
4. Limitation for approaching the Appellate Tribunal.

Summary:

Communication and Timing of the Impugned Order:
The petitioner challenged the orders made by the first respondent under Section 8(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The impugned order dated 27.01.2023 was communicated to the petitioners on 31.01.2023 via email and uploaded on the official website the same day. The physical dispatch occurred on 04.02.2023, received by the petitioners on 06.02.2023.

Availability and Applicability of Alternate Remedy:
The court acknowledged that the petitioners have an alternate remedy by way of an appeal to the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal, PMLA, New Delhi under Section 26 of PMLA. The law is well-settled that alternate remedy is not an absolute bar for exercising writ jurisdiction, but it is a rule of discretion, especially stringent in fiscal law matters.

Exceptions to the Alternate Remedy Rule:
The court cited several precedents, including Dunlop India, Satyawati Tondon, K.C. Mathew, Commercial Steel, and Greatship, emphasizing that writ petitions should not bypass statutory remedies unless exceptions such as violation of fundamental rights, principles of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, or challenge to the vires of the statute are established. In this case, the petitioners' arguments did not qualify as exceptions to the alternate remedy rule.

Limitation for Approaching the Appellate Tribunal:
The court noted that under Section 26(3) of PMLA, the Appellate Tribunal should be approached within 45 days from the date the impugned order is received. The court found the petitioners' submission reasonable that the time spent in the High Court should be excluded from the limitation period. However, it left the decision to the Appellate Tribunal.

Conclusion:
The writ petitions were disposed of as closed, preserving the petitioners' rights to approach the Appellate Tribunal under Section 26 of PMLA. The connected writ miscellaneous petitions were also disposed of as closed, with no order as to costs.

---