Writ jurisdiction after statutory order under money-laundering attachment rules, with merits left open for High Court review

After the statutory authority passed a detailed order on the petitioner's Rule 5(5) application under the Prevention of Money Laundering Rules, the proper course was to permit recourse to the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227. The Supreme Court did not enter into the merits of the attachment dispute, expressly reserved the petitioner's right to raise all legal and factual contentions before the High Court, and requested expeditious consideration of the matter.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner could challenge the statutory authority's order before the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India after being relegated to the alternative remedy contemplated under Rule 5(5) of the Prevention of Money Laundering (Taking Possession of Attached or Frozen Properties confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2013, and whether the Supreme Court should enter into the merits of the attachment dispute.

Analysis: The statutory authority had already passed a detailed order on the petitioner's application under Rule 5(5). In view of that intervening order, the proper course was to permit the petitioner to invoke the High Court's writ jurisdiction. The Court expressly recorded that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits and preserved the petitioner's right to raise all legal and factual contentions before the High Court. The High Court was also requested to take up the matter expeditiously.

Conclusion: The petitioner was permitted to challenge the statutory order before the High Court, and the Supreme Court declined to decide the merits.

---