Premature writ challenge in money laundering proceedings rejected where statutory adjudication and reply stage were still pending.

A writ challenge to proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was held premature where notice had been issued under Section 8(1), the affected person had filed a reply, and the adjudication was still pending. The Court noted that the Adjudicating Authority must consider the reply, hear the affected person, and determine under Section 8(2) whether the properties are involved in money laundering. As the petitioner had already participated in the enquiry and had an efficacious remedy before the statutory authority, writ jurisdiction was not warranted at that stage and the challenge to the pending proceedings failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was maintainable at the stage when show-cause notice had been issued and the petitioner had already filed its reply.

Analysis: The proceedings arose from a predicate offence and the consequent registration of an ECIR, followed by search and seizure under the Act. After the seizure, the authorised application for retention of the movable properties was placed before the Adjudicating Authority, which recorded reasons under Section 8(1) and issued notice. The petitioner had entered appearance, filed objections and participated in the enquiry, which was already posted for further hearing. In that statutory scheme, the Adjudicating Authority is required to consider the reply, hear the affected person and then determine under Section 8(2) whether the properties are involved in money laundering. Since the notice stage was still pending adjudication and the petitioner had an efficacious opportunity before the Authority, interference in writ jurisdiction was unwarranted.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable at this stage and the challenge to the pending adjudicatory proceedings failed.

---