Writ maintainability under PMLA failed where confirmation order was already under appeal and constructive possession was undisclosed.

A writ petition challenging confirmation of attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was declined because the same confirmation order was already under appeal before the appellate authority. The court noted that notices had earlier informed the petitioner that constructive possession of the property had been taken, but this material fact was not disclosed before the appellate authority. In these circumstances, the writ court found the petition not maintainable and held that the cited precedent did not assist on the facts, and the petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable against the confirmation order when the challenge to the same order was already pending before the appellate authority and the petitioner had not disclosed that constructive possession of the property had been taken under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The property had been provisionally attached and the attachment was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority. The petitioner had already carried the matter in appeal and obtained a status quo order, but prior notices had been issued informing that constructive possession had been taken in terms of Section 8(4) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. That fact was not brought to the notice of the appellate authority. In these circumstances, the writ court declined to entertain the petition, particularly when the impugned order was already under challenge before the appellate authority and the cited precedent was held inapplicable on the facts.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed.

---