Appeal Dismissed: Single-Member Bench Permissible, PAO Valid, Writ Petition Not Maintained Due to Unexhausted Remedies.

The HC dismissed the appeal, supporting the Single Judge's decision. It upheld the validity of the Adjudicating Authority's order and the PAO, confirming that a single-member bench is permissible. The HC found the PAO contained sufficient reasons, and the writ petition was not maintainable, as statutory remedies were not exhausted.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Quorum of the Adjudicating Authority.
2. Non-supply of 'Reasons to Believe' for Provisional Attachment Order.
3. Maintainability of the writ petition.

Summary:

Quorum of the Adjudicating Authority:
The Appellant argued that the Adjudicating Authority's quorum was incomplete as per Section 2 of the PMLA, 2002. The High Court referred to a prior judgment (J Sekar vs. Union of India) which clarified that under Section 6(5)(b) of the PMLA, a Bench may consist of one or two members as deemed fit by the Chairperson. Thus, a single-member bench is permissible, and the application challenging the quorum was not accepted.

Non-supply of 'Reasons to Believe':
The Appellant contended that the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) under Section 5(1) of the PMLA was issued without providing the 'Reasons to Believe'. The High Court reviewed the PAO and found it included detailed reasons and evidence, such as the FIR, forensic audit report, and statements from various individuals. The Court held that the PAO itself contained sufficient reasons and did not require separate documentation for each property attached.

Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, stating the Appellant should have approached the Appellate Tribunal under Section 26 of the PMLA. The High Court supported this view, citing the principle that statutory remedies must be exhausted before resorting to writ jurisdiction. The Court referenced several judgments emphasizing that when a statutory forum is available, it should be utilized before invoking Article 226 of the Constitution.

Conclusion:
The High Court found no merit in the Appellant's arguments and upheld the Single Judge's decision. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the Adjudicating Authority's order and the PAO were valid, and the writ petition was not maintainable.

---