Alternative remedy under PMLA barred writ review, with the petitioner directed to pursue the statutory appeal.

A writ petition challenging an order under Section 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was not entertained because the statute provided an effective appellate remedy under Section 26. The Court applied the alternative-remedy principle and held that, absent exceptional circumstances, grievances should be examined by the Appellate Tribunal rather than through writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The request for extension of time to file the appeal was also declined because the statute itself allowed condonation of delay before the appellate forum.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the order of the Adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was maintainable in view of the statutory appeal under Section 26 and the availability of an alternative remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The impugned order was one passed under Section 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Since the statute provided an appellate remedy under Section 26, the petitioner's grievances could be examined by the Appellate Tribunal. In the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Court declined to invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction when an effective and efficacious alternative remedy was available. The request for extension of time to file the appeal was also declined, as the statute itself provided for condonation of delay before the appellate forum.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appellate remedy.

---