Premature writ challenge to provisional attachment cannot be rejected where no statutory remedy is yet available.

A writ petition challenging provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act was rejected by the High Court as premature on the ground that the statutory 30-day period had not expired and no effective statutory remedy was then available. That refusal was based on an erroneous assumption that the petitioner could still pursue an adequate remedy before expiry of the statutory period. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's non-entertainment of the writ on that ground could not be sustained, set aside the order, and restored the petition to the High Court for consideration on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in declining to entertain the writ petition challenging provisional attachment on the ground that the statutory period under Section 5(5) of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 had not expired and that no statutory remedy was then available.

Analysis: The writ petition had challenged an order of provisional attachment. The High Court declined to entertain it on the footing that the petition was premature because the 30-day period under the statutory scheme had not expired. The order under challenge proceeded on an erroneous premise that an adequate statutory remedy was available to contest the provisional attachment before expiry of that period. In the circumstances, the refusal to entertain the writ petition on that ground could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The High Court's order was set aside, and the writ petition was restored to the file of the High Court for consideration on merits. The appellant succeeded on this issue.

---