Writ jurisdiction was held maintainable against provisional...

Writ jurisdiction was held maintainable against provisional attachment because the challenge went to the very legality of invoking the exceptional power of immediate attachment, and the statutory remedy under adjudication was not an efficacious forum to test compliance with the preconditions. The Court held that where the second proviso to Section 5(1) is invoked, the competent officer must record objective reasons, based on material in possession, showing that non-attachment would likely frustrate proceedings. As the order relied mainly on alleged laundering material and did not disclose a legally sufficient nexus to urgency or possible frustration, the attachment was vitiated. The provisional attachment and consequential proceedings were set aside, with liberty to commence fresh proceedings in accordance with law.