Alternative statutory remedy bars writ jurisdiction where PMLA provides restoration and appellate review against attachment.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily not to be invoked where the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 provides an efficacious statutory remedy. The text explains that no recognised exception to the alternative-remedy rule was made out, as there was no jurisdictional defect, no natural justice breach in the jurisdictional sense, and no vires challenge. It also states that persons claiming an interest in attached property may seek restoration before the Special Court under Section 8 and Rule 3-A of the Restoration of Property Rules, 2016, and may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 26. The challenge to attachment was therefore to be pursued through the statutory framework, not in writ proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable in view of the statutory remedies under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. (ii) Whether the petitioners, as persons claiming interest in the attached property, had an efficacious remedy before the Special Court and the Appellate Tribunal against the attachment confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable in view of the statutory remedies under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The availability of an effective statutory remedy is a well-recognised restraint on the exercise of writ jurisdiction. The Court noted that the petitioners did not bring their case within any accepted exception to the rule against entertaining a writ petition where the statute provides a complete redressal mechanism. No case of lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice in the jurisdictional sense, or challenge to the vires of the statute was made out so as to justify bypassing the statutory forum.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and the Court declined to entertain it.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners, as persons claiming interest in the attached property, had an efficacious remedy before the Special Court and the Appellate Tribunal against the attachment confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority.

Analysis: Under Section 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, a claimant having a legitimate interest in the property and alleging quantifiable loss may seek restoration before the Special Court during trial, and Rule 3-A of the Prevention of Money-Laundering (Restoration of Property) Rules, 2016 provides the procedure for such restoration. In addition, Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 provides an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against an order of the Adjudicating Authority. The Court found that these remedies were available to the petitioners and were adequate to address their grievance regarding the manner of attachment.

Conclusion: The petitioners were required to pursue the statutory remedies before the Special Court and the Appellate Tribunal.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the attachment was not examined on merits in writ jurisdiction, and the petitioners were left to work out their remedies under the statutory framework.

Ratio Decidendi: When a special statute provides an efficacious mechanism for restoration and appellate review, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked to bypass that forum unless a recognised exception to the alternative-remedy rule is established.

---