Petition challenging provisional attachment of properties under PMLA dismissed due to available appellate remedy under Section 26

HC dismissed petition challenging provisional attachment of immovable properties under PMLA. Court held that petitioner had alternative appellate remedy under Section 26 of PMLA before Appellate Tribunal. Court noted that any aggrieved person, even if not party to original order, can file appeal under Section 26 read with Rule 2 of Rules 2005. Given availability of statutory appellate remedy, HC declined to entertain writ petition and dismissed it.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the maintainability of the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the availability of alternative remedies under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Maintainability:
The petitioner, a banking company, sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the attachment of properties by the Enforcement Directorate. The petitioner argued that the attachment was ex-parte and requested the court to set aside the entries in the list of confirmed attached immovable properties. The respondent contended that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 26 of the PMLA, 2002, and since the attachment order was not challenged, the writ petition should be dismissed. The petitioner, in rejoinder, stated that it was not a party to the attachment order and could only seek relief through the court's writ jurisdiction.

Analysis of Maintainability:
The court examined the provisions of Section 26 of the PMLA, 2002 and the Rules of 2005, which allow any person aggrieved by an order to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, even if not a party to the order. Considering these provisions, the court found that the petitioner could avail the alternative remedy provided under Section 26 of the PMLA, 2002. Therefore, the court was not inclined to entertain the petition and dismissed it, granting the petitioner the liberty to pursue the remedy under Section 26.

Conclusion:
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, after analyzing the provisions of the PMLA, 2002 and the Rules of 2005, dismissed the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court held that the petitioner could avail the alternative remedy u/s 26 of the PMLA, 2002 and clarified that the time spent on the petition would not affect any future application under the Limitation Act. The petition was disposed of, providing the petitioner with the option to pursue the remedy under Section 26 of the PMLA, 2002.

---