PMLA provisional attachment in writ jurisdiction declines interference where the authority had material and disputes were factual and premature.

Under Article 226, provisional attachment and related PMLA proceedings will not ordinarily be interfered with at a premature stage where the competent authority had material to form the requisite satisfaction. The challenge was found to rest largely on disputed questions of fact concerning the University's functioning, alleged fake degrees, and the endowment fund account, which were not suitable for writ adjudication. Earlier judicial findings on those matters were treated as relevant background supporting the impugned action. As no patent jurisdictional defect, absence of reasons to believe, or clear illegality was established, interference in writ jurisdiction was declined and the parties were left to pursue the statutory process under the Act.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions challenging the provisional attachment orders and connected proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were liable to be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction, and whether the petitioners had made out a case of lack of jurisdiction, absence of reasons to believe, or other patent illegality in the initiation and continuation of the PMLA proceedings.

Analysis: The challenge was examined in the context of the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The materials placed before the authority were found to include information regarding the functioning of the University, the grant of degrees alleged to be fake, and the withdrawal and closure of the endowment fund account, which constituted a factual basis for the competent authority to form the requisite satisfaction. The proceedings were also at an intermediate stage under the PMLA, and the reliefs sought were considered pre-emptive in nature. The Court further noted that the matter involved numerous disputed questions of fact, which could not be conveniently adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. Reliance on later developments and rival versions regarding legality of the University's functioning and the validity of degrees did not dislodge the existence of material supporting the impugned action. The Court also treated the earlier judicial findings on the University's functioning and degrees as relevant background against which the PMLA proceedings were founded.

Conclusion: The challenge to the provisional attachment orders and connected PMLA proceedings was not made out. The initiation of proceedings was not shown to suffer from a patent jurisdictional error or absence of material, and interference under Article 226 was declined.

Final Conclusion: The writ court declined to interdict the ongoing money-laundering proceedings and upheld the restraint against disturbing the provisional attachment at that stage, leaving the parties to pursue the statutory process and remedies available under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: In a writ petition under Article 226, provisional attachment and related PMLA proceedings will not be interfered with at a premature stage where the competent authority has some material to form the requisite satisfaction and the dispute turns substantially on contested facts rather than a clear jurisdictional defect.

---