Writ interference in provisional attachment declined where statutory remedy remained open and no jurisdictional error was shown.

Writ interference with provisional attachment proceedings was declined because the challenge was premature and the statutory remedy before the adjudicating authority had not been exhausted. The impugned order merely extended time for filing a reply and left all issues open for decision under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. As no jurisdictional error or illegality was shown, the High Court exercised its discretionary writ power sparingly and left the petitioner's objection to be decided by the adjudicating authority in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order refusing interference with the provisional attachment proceedings required correction in writ jurisdiction, and whether the adjudicating authority should be left to decide the petitioner's objection in accordance with law.

Analysis: The challenge was founded on the contention that the property was acquired before the alleged crime and before initiation of proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The order under challenge had only extended time for filing a reply and had kept all questions open before the adjudicating authority. The available statutory remedy before the authority under the Act had not been exhausted, and the writ jurisdiction remained discretionary. No jurisdictional error or illegality in the order was found.

Conclusion: Interference was declined, and the adjudicating authority was left to decide the objection and pass orders in accordance with law.

---