PUPPYS TOURS AND TRAVELS LLP vs UNION OF INDIA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
Reserved on : 12.08.2026
Pronounced on : 04.11.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 04 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 964 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 966 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO. 3567 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO. 3821 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO. 3826 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO. 3827 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO. 3828 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
IN WP No. 964/2026
BETWEEN:
PUPPYS TOURS AND TRAVELS LLP
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP FIRM
REGISTERED UNDER THE LIMITED LIABILITY
PARTNERSHIP ACT, 2008
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
NO.5/6/7, SARASWATI NILAYA
KING STREET, OLD TOWN,
CHALLAKERE
Digitally signed
by PADMAVATHI
B K
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
- 2 -
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 522.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI MAYANK JAIN, SRI ARPIT GOEL
SRI RAJATH AARON THOMAS, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1.
UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
ROOM NO.128A, NORTH BLOCK
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR
NAMRATA AC SINGH
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
THIRD FLOOR, B-BLOCK BMTC
SHANTHI NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 027.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.ARVIND KAMATH, ASG;
SRI ZOHEB HOSSAIN, SR.ADVOCATE AND
SRI MADHU N.RAO, SPL.COUNSEL)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF BNSS.,
PRAYING TO DECLARING THAT THE SEARCH, SEIZURE, FREEZING,
RETENTION CONDUCTED BY RESPONDENT NO.2/ED AGAINST THE
PETITIONER IN ECIR/BGZO/19/2025 IS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW
AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT,
- 3 -
DIRECTION OR ORDER QUASHING O.A.NO.279/2025 DATED
20.09.2025 ANNEXURE-G FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 FOR
RETENTION OF PROPERTY AND RECORDS, BEFORE THE
LD.ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY, PMLA ALONG WITH ALL
PROCEEDINGS EMANATING THEREFROM AND DIRECTING
FORTHWITH RELEASE OF PROPERTIES AND RECORDS BY
RESPONDENT NO.2; AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY
OTHER WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER QUASHING SHOW CAUSE
NOTICE U/S 8(1) OF PMLA DATED 29.09.2025 ANNEXURE-H ALONG
WITH REASONS TO BELIEVE, ISSUED BY LD. ADJUDICATING
AUTHORITY, PMLA, IN ECIR/BGZO/19/2025 ALONG WITH ALL
PROCEEDINGS EMANATING THEREFFROM; ISSUE A WRIT OF
PROHIBITION OR ANY OTHER WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER
PROHIBITING RESPONDENT NO.2 FROM RETAINING THE
PROPERTIES AND DOCUMENTS SEIZED DURING SEARCH AND
SEIZURE OPERATIONS QUA THE PETITIONER IN
ECIR/BGZO/19/2025 AND FORTHWITH RELEASE OF PROPERTIES
AND RECORDS, BY RESPONDENT NO.2.
IN WP NO. 966/2026
BETWEEN:
1. KC NAGARAJA
S/O KONDIAHALLI
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
CHANNABASAPPA,
R/O NO.5/6/7
SARASWATI NILAYA
- 4 -
KING STREET
OLD TOWN, CHALLAKERE
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 522.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI MAYANK JAIN; SRI ARPIT GOEL;
SRI RAJATH AND SRI AARON THOMAS, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
ROOM NO.128A, NORTH BLOCK
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR
NAMRATA A C SINGH
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
THIRD FLOOR, B- BLOCK, BMTC
SHANTHI NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 027.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.ARVIND KAMATH, ASG
SRI ZOHEB HOSSAIN, SR.ADVOCATE AND
SRI MADHU N.RAO, SPL.COUNSEL)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF
BNSS., PRAYING TO DECLARING THAT THE SEARCH, SEIZURE,
FREEZING, RETENTION CONDUCTED BY RESPONDENT NO.2/ED
AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN ECIR/BGZO/19/2025 IS ILLEGAL
- 5 -
AND BAD IN LAW; AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY
OTHER WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER QUASHING
O.A.NO.279/2025 DATED 20.09.2025 FILED BY RESPONDENT
NO.2 FOR RETENTION OF PROPERTY AND RECORDS, BEFORE
THE LD. ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY, PMLA ALONG WITH ALL
PROCEEDINGS EMANATING THEREFROM AND DIRECTING
FORTHWITH RELEASE OF PROPERTIES AND RECORDS
INCLUDING DEFREEZING OF LOCKER FREEZED BY RESPONDENT
NO.2; AND ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT,
DIRECTION OR ORDER QUASHING SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S
8(1) OF PMLA DATED 29.09.2025 ALONG WITH REASONS TO
BELIEVE, ISSUED BY LD. ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY, PMLA, IN
ECIR/BGZO/19/2025 ALONG WITH ALL PROCEEDINGS
EMANATING THEREFFROM; ISSUE A WRIT OF PROHIBITION OR
ANY OTHER WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER PROHIBITING R2
FROM RETAINING THE PROPERTIES AND DOCUMENTS
SEIZED/FREEZED DURING SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS
QUA THE PETITIONER IN ECIR/BGZO/19/2025 AND FORTHWITH
RELEASE OF PROPERTIES AND RECORDS INCLUDING
DEFREEZING OF LOCKER FREEZED BY R2.
IN WP NO. 3567/2026
BETWEEN:
1. THIPPESWAMY KONDLAHALLI CHANNABASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
S/O KONDIAHALLI CHANNABASAPPA,
R/O KC HOUSE, OLD TOWN,
NEAR VEERABHADRA SWAMY TEMPLE,
CHALLAKERE,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 522.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI MAYANK JAIN; SRI ARPIT GOEL;
- 6 -
SRI RAJATH AND SRI AARON THOMAS, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
ROOM NO.128A, NORTH BLOCK,
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT,
THIRD FLOOR, B- BLOCK,
BMTC, SHANTHI NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 027.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.ARVIND KAMATH, ASG
SRI ZOHEB HOSSAIN, SR.ADVOCATE AND
SRI MADHU N.RAO, SPL.COUNSEL)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF BNSS.,
PRAYING TO DECLARING THAT THE SEARCH, SEIZURE,
FREEZING, RETENTION CONDUCTED BY RESPONDENT NO.2/ED
AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN ECIR/BGZO/19/2025 DATED
22/07/25 VIDE (ANNEXURE-A) IS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW;
AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT,
DIRECTION OR ORDER QUASHING O.A. NO. 279/2025 DATED
20.09.2025 (ANNEXURE -G) FILED BY RESPONDENT NO. 2 FOR
RETENTION OF PROPERTY AND RECORDS, BEFORE THE LD.
ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY, PMLA ALONG WITH ALL
PROCEEDINGS EMANATING THEREFROM AND DIRECTING
- 7 -
FORTHWITH RELEASE OF PROPERTIES AND RECORDS
INCLUDING DEFREEZING OF ACCOUNTS BY RESPONDENT NO.
2; AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT,
DIRECTION OR ORDER QUASHING SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S
8(1) OF PMLA DATED 29.09.2025 ALONG WITH REASONS TO
BELIEVE (ANNEXURE H), ISSUED BY LD. ADJUDICATING
AUTHORITY, PMLA, IN ECIR/BGZO/19/2025 ALONG WITH ALL
PROCEEDINGS EMANATING THEREFROM, AND ISSUE A WRIT OF
PROHIBITION OR ANY OTHER WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER
PROHIBITING RESPONDENT NO. 2 FROM RETAINING THE
PROPERTIES AND DOCUMENTS SEIZED/FREEZED DURING
SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS QUA THE PETITIONER IN
ECIR/BGZO/19/2025 AND FORTHWITH RELEASE OF PROPERTIES
AND RECORDS INCLUDING DEFREEZING OF ACCOUNTS
FREEZED BY RESPONDENT NO.2.
IN WP NO. 3821/2026
BETWEEN:
1. PANDURANGA R.,
S/O RANGASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
RESIDING AT
KARIYANNANAHALLY,
BEERENAHALLI,
BEERANAHALLY,
CHITRADURGA - 577 599.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI MAYANK JAIN; SRI ARPIT GOEL;
SRI RAJATH AND SRI AARON THOMAS, ADVOCATES)
- 8 -
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
ROOM NO.128A, NORTH BLOCK,
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
NAMRATA AC SINGH,
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT,
THIRD FLOOR, B-BLOCK,
BMTC SHANTHI NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 027.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.ARVIND KAMATH, ASG
SRI ZOHEB HOSSAIN, SR.ADVOCATE AND
SRI MADHU N.RAO, SPL.COUNSEL)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF BNSS.,
PRAYING TO DECLARING THAT THE SEARCH, SEIZURE AND
RETENTION CONDUCTED BY RESPONDENT NO.2/ED AGAINST
THE PETITIONER DATED 22.07.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN
ECIR/BGZO/19/2025 IS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW; AND
QUASHING OA NO. 279/2025 DATED 20/09/2025 VIDE
ANNEXURE-G FILED BY R2 FOR RETENTION OF PROPERTY,
BEFORE THE LD, ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY, PMLA ALONG
WITH ALL PROCEEDINGS EMANATING THEREFROM AND
DIRECTING FORTHWITH RELEASE OF PROPERTY OF THE
PETITIONER, BY R2; AND QUASHING SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S
- 9 -
8(1) OF PMLA DATED 29/09/2025 ALONG WITH REASONS TO
BELIEVE VIDE (ANNEXURE-H) ISSUED BY LD. ADJUDICATING
AUTHORITY, PMLA, IN ECIR/BGZO/19/2025 ALONG WITH ALL
PROCEEDINGS EMANTING THEREFROM; AND DIRECTION OR
ORDER PROHIBITING R2 FROM RETAINING THE PROPERTY
SEIZED DURING SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS QUA THE
PETITIONER IN ECIR/BGZO/19/2025 DATED 22/07/2025 VIDE
(ANNEXURE A) AND FORTHWITH RELEASE OF PROPERTY BY R2.
IN WP NO. 3826/2026
BETWEEN:
1. VIJAYA D.,
W/O NAGARAJAPPA M.T.,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RESIDING AT MANNEKOTE
CHITRADURGA
KARNATAKA - 577 543.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI MAYANK JAIN; SRI ARPIT GOEL;
SRI RAJATH AND SRI AARON THOMAS, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
ROOM NO. 128A, NORTH BLOCK
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR
NAMRATA AC SINGH
- 10 -
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
THIRD FLOOR, B-BLOCK,
BMTC SHANTHI NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 027.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.ARVIND KAMATH, ASG
SRI ZOHEB HOSSAIN, SR.ADVOCATE AND
SRI MADHU N.RAO, SPL.COUNSEL)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF
BNSS., PRAYING TO DECLARING THAT THE SEARCH, SEIZURE
AND RETENTION CONDUCTED BY RESPONDENT NO.2/ED
AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN ECIR/BGZO/19/2025 DATED IS
ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW; AND QUASH O.A. NO. 302/2025
DATED 03.10.2025 (ANNEXURE-G) FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.
2 FOR RETENTION OF PROPERTY, BEFORE THE LD.
ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY, PMLA ALONG WITH ALL
PROCEEDINGS EMANATING THEREFROM AND DIRECTING
FORTHWITH RELEASE OF PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER, BY
RESPONDENT NO.2; AND QUASH SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S
8(1) OF PMLA DATED 09.10.2025 (ANNEXURE -H) ALONG WITH
REASONS TO BELIEVE, ISSUED BY LD. ADJUDICATING
AUTHORITY, PMLA, IN ECIR/BGZO/19/2025 DATED 22.07.2025
(ANNEXURE-A) ALONG WITH ALL PROCEEDINGS EMANATING
THEREFROM; AND ISSUE A WRIT OF PROHIBITION OR ANY
OTHER WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER PROHIBITING
RESPONDENT NO. 2 FROM RETAINING THE PROPERTY SEIZED
DURING SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS QUA THE
PETITIONER IN ECIR/BGZO/19/2025 DATED 22.07.2025
(ANNEXURE-A) AND FORTHWITH RELEASE OF PROPERTY BY
RESPONDENT NO.2.
- 11 -
IN WP NO. 3827/2026
BETWEEN:
1. ABH INFRASTRUCTURES
REPRESENTED BY
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
SUCHITRA S.,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
OFFICE AT NO. 1546,
ND
80 FT ROAD, 2 STAGE,
CHANDRA LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560 040.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI MAYANK JAIN; SRI ARPIT GOEL;
SRI RAJATH AND SRI AARON THOMAS, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
ROOM NO.128A, NORTH BLOCK,
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
NAMRATA AC SINGH,
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT,
THIRD FLOOR, B- BLOCK,
BMTC SHANTHI NAGAR,
- 12 -
BENGALURU - 560 027.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.ARVIND KAMATH, ASG
SRI ZOHEB HOSSAIN, SR.ADVOCATE AND
SRI MADHU N.RAO, SPL.COUNSEL)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF
BNSS., PRAYING TO DECLARING THAT THE SEARCH, SEIZURE
AND RETENTION CONDUCTED BY RESPONDENT NO.2/ED
AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN ECIR/BGZO/19/2025 DATED 22-
07-2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW; AND
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT,
DIRECTION OR ORDER QUASHING OA NO. 279/2025 DATED
20/09/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-H FILED BY R2 FOR RETENTION OF
PROPERTY, BEFORE THE LD. ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY, PMLA
ALONG WITH ALL PROCEEDINGS EMANATING THEREFROM AND
DIRECTING FORTHWITH RELEASE OF PEOPERTY OF THE
PETITIONER, BY R2; AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR
ANY OTHER WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER QUASHING SHOW
CAUSE NOTICE U/S 8(1) OF PMLA DATED 29/09/2025 VIDE
(ANNEXURE-J) ALONG WITH REASONS TO BELIEVE, ISSUED BY
LD. ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY, PMLA, IN ECIR/BGZO/19/2025
ALONG WITH ALL PROCEEDINGS EMANATING THEREFROM; AND
ISSUE A WRIT OF PROHIBITION OR ANY OTHER WRIT,
DIRECTION OR ORDER PROHIBITING R2 FROM RETAINING THE
PROPERTY SEIZED DURING SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS
QUA THE PETITIONER IN ECIR/BGZO/19/2025 AND FORTHWITH
RELEASE OF PROPERTY BY R2.
- 13 -
IN WP NO. 3828/2026
BETWEEN:
1. SRIDHAR K
S/O D C KRISHNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.16.
ND
2 CROSS, NEAR K T G COLLEGE,
SRIGANGHA NAGAR, SUNKADAKATTE,
BENGALURU NORTH
BENGALURU - 560 091.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI MAYANK JAIN; SRI ARPIT GOEL;
SRI RAJATH AND SRI AARON THOMAS, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
ROOM NO.128A, NORTH BLOCK,
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
2.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
NAMRATA AC SINGH,
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT,
THIRD FLOOR, B- BLOCK,
BMTC SHANTHI NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 027.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.ARVIND KAMATH, ASG
- 14 -
SRI ZOHEB HOSSAIN, SR.ADVOCATE AND
SRI MADHU N.RAO, SPL.COUNSEL)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF BNSS.,
PRAYING TO DECLARING THAT THE SEARCH, SEIZURE AND
RETENTION CONDUCTED BY RESPONDENT NO.2/ED AGAINST
THE PETITIONER IN ECIR/BGZO/19/2025 DATED 22.07.2025
VIDE (ANNEXURE-A) IS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW; AND ISSUE
A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, DIRECTION OR
ORDER QUASHING O.A.NO.279/2025 DATED 20.09.2025
(ANNEXURE-H) FILED BY R2 FOR RETENTION OF PROPERTY,
BEFORE LD.ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY, PMLA ALONG WITH ALL
PROCEEDINGS EMANATING THEREFROM AND DIRECTING
FORTHWITH RELEASE OF PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER, BY
R2; AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT,
DIRECTION OR ORDER QUASHING SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S
8(1) OF PMLA DATED 29.09.2025 ALONG WITH REASONS TO
BELIEVE (ANNEXURE-J), ISSUED BY LD. ADJUDICATING
AUTHORITY PMLA, IN ECIR/BGZO/19/2025 ALONG WITH ALL
PROCEEDINGS EMANATING THEREFROM; AND ISSUE A WRIT OF
PROHIBITION OR ANY OTHER WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER
PROHIBITING RESPONDENT NO. 2 FROM RETAINING THE
PROPERTY SEIZED DURING SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS
QUA THE PETITIONER IN ECIR/BGZO/19/2025 DATED
22.07.2025 VIDE (ANNEXURE A) AND FORTHWITH RELEASE OF
PROPERTY BY RESPONDENT NO.2.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 12.08.2026, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
- 15 -
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
Petitioners in all these petitions call in question an order of
seizure and retention passed by the Adjudicating Authority under
Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short), in Enforcement Case
Information Report bearing No.ECIR/BGZO/19/2025 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the ECIR’ for short).
2. Heard Sri Rajath, Sri Mayank Jain, Sri Arpit Goel and Sri
Aaron Thomas, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri K. Arvind
Kamath, learned Additional Solicitor General of India along with
Sri Zoheb Hossain, learned senior counsel and Sri Madhu N. Rao,
learned Special Counsel for the respondents.
3. Facts obtaining in each of the petitions and the prayers set
therein are all similar. Therefore, these petitions are taken up
together and the facts obtaining in the main petition –
W.P.No.964/2026 would be narrated, for the sake of convenience.
- 16 -
4. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:
On 22.07.2025, respondent No.2 – Directorate of
Enforcement (hereinafter referred to as ‘the E.D.’ for short)
registers a case in No.ECIR/BGZO/19/2025. The ECIR comes to be
registered on account of registration of certain predicate offences
relating to the allegations of betting and gambling activities. There
are 4 predicate offences registered in different crime numbers
against the petitioners, they are as follows:
Sl.No. Crime Number Police Station Offences under Sections and Act
a. 64 of 2011 Challakere PS,
Chitradurga
District
Punishable under Section 420 of
the IPC, Section 66 of the
Information Technology Act, 2000
(IT Act) and Sections 79 and 80 of
the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (KP
Act)
b. 60 of 2015 Challakere PS,
Chitradurga
District
Punishable under Section 420 of
the IPC, Section 66 of IT Act and
Sections 78(3), 79 and 80 of KP
Act
c. 435 of 2016 Challakere PS,
Chitradurga
District
Punishable under Section 420 of
the IPC and Section 78(3) of the
KP Act
d. 215 of 2022 Davanagere
Extension Police
Station,
Davanagere
District
Punishable under Section 420, 506
and 34 of the IPC and Section
78(A)(vi) of the KP Act.
- 17 -
On the registration of the predicate offences as quoted
hereinabove, the ECIR comes to be registered and an addendum to
the ECIR is carried out. It is the case of the petitioners that the
crimes indicated in the ECIR and its addendum are already closed
and today there are no crimes against the petitioners. Pursuant to
the registration of the ECIR and the addendum, search is conducted
in the premises of the petitioners and others and the search yields
to certain seizure and retention of property under Section 17 of the
Act . Properties such as vehicles, jewellery, gold, digital devices
inter alia were the subject matter of seizure and also a direction is
issued to freeze several bank accounts. Respondent No.2 then files
an application in O.A.No.279/2025 before the Adjudicating
Authority seeking retention of the records and properties until the
conclusion of the investigation. The Adjudicating Authority then
issues a show cause notice under Section 8(1) of the Act on
29.09.2025, along with Reasons to Believe by the Adjudicating
Authority seeking reply as to why the order of retention should not
be passed. Later, on 18.10.2025, the E.D. files the complaint for
the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Act. It is then the
- 18 -
petitioners have knocked at the doors of this Court in the subject
petitions.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all these
cases would vehemently make two submissions. The first
submission is that, the ECIR can exist only if there are predicate
offences. The E.D. does not have power to add or club any
predicate offences in one investigation conducted by the E.D. by
way of an addendum to the existing ECIR. The impugned search
proceedings are therefore illegal, since there are no Reasons to
Believe or any material in possession of respondent No.2 – E.D. to
demonstrate that the material / objects are proceeds of crime. He
would contend that non-furnishing of Reasons to Believe for the
property retention amounts to violation of principles of natural
justice. The second submission projected is, the Adjudicating
Authority is coram non judice as the constitution is not in
accordance with Section 6 of the Act, which mandates that the
Adjudicating Authority having one Chairperson and two others as its
members, each of them having experience in the field of law,
administration, finance or accountancy. The learned counsel would
- 19 -
submit that the show cause notice under Section 8 of the Act is
issued by one member who is not even a legal member. In the
light of the admitted fact that there is only one member, the
learned counsel for the petitioners would project that the
proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority is coram non judice
and therefore, the proceedings are void ab initio . The allegations of
betting and gambling are not scheduled offences under the Act for
the Adjudicating Authority to pass orders of attachment, seizure or
direct freezing of bank accounts.
6. Per contra , learned Additional Solicitor General of India and
learned senior counsel representing respondent No.2 - E.D. would
contend that the Act is a complete code in itself. The E.D. has the
authority to make addendum to the existing ECIR and would submit
that it is also recognised by several High Courts. He would contend
that provisional attachment and seizure is civil in nature and the
order can be issued without any FIR registered for statutory
compliance ordained in Section 17 of the Act and it is the same
which is followed in the case at hand. They would contend that
petitioners have not questioned the validity of the seizure on the
- 20 -
ground of breach of any statutory safeguard or violation of
fundamental rights in the conduct of search. The petitioners have
participated by submitting a reply to the show cause notice and
have already made submissions before the Adjudicating Authority.
Therefore, having submitted their replies and made submissions,
imaginary allegations on the ground of coram non judice, cannot
now turn around and challenge the proceedings invoking the writ
jurisdiction of this Court.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
materials on record.
8. The afore-narrated facts and link in the chain of events are
not disputed. The submissions and the contra-submissions take
this Court through the question, whether the writ petitions would
warrant entertainment.
9. The E.D. – respondent No.2 files ECIR against the
petitioners. It reads as follows:
- 21 -
- 22 -
- 23 -
Sd/-
The addendum issued by the respondent - E.D. is as follows:
- 24 -
- 25 -
10. These petitioners admittedly challenge only the validity of
the search proceedings, subsequent application filed under Section
17(4) of the Act and the show cause notices issued under Section
8(1) of the Act. There is no challenge to the ECIR. It is the
submission that ECIR would not survive in the teeth of the fact that
- 26 -
all the predicate offences have been closed. Search and seizure
proceedings result in an order under Section 17(1-A) of the Act
directing freezement of bank account. The order directing
freezement of the bank accounts impugned in W.P.No.964/2026
reads as follows:
- 27 -
10.1. The E.D. then files an application before the
Adjudicating Authority in O.A.No.279/2025 seeking retention of the
property and records in terms of Section 17(4) of the Act. Section
17(4) of the Act reads as follows:
“17. Search and seizure.—
(1) XXX
(2) XXX
(3) XXX
(4) The authority seizing any record or property
under sub-section (1) or freezing any record
or property under sub-section (1A) shall,
within a period of thirty days from such
seizure or freezing, as the case may be, file
- 28 -
an application, requesting for retention of
such record or property seized under sub-
section (1) or for continuation of the order
of freezing served under sub-section (1A),
before the Adjudicating Authority. ”
The application is on the score that the material seized would
demonstrate that the operations were designed to lure public with
celebrity style branding inter alia . After the application seeking
retention under Section 17(4) of the Act is filed by the
respondent - E.D., the impugned show cause notice comes to
be issued to the petitioner under Section 8(1) of the Act,
enclosing to it the Reasons to Believe.
11. As observed hereinabove, the Act is a complete code unto
itself. The Act provides a comprehensive and self-adjudicating
mechanism. The issue in the lis need not detain this Court for long
or delve deep into the matter. The Apex Court in the case of JSW
1
STEEL LIMITED VS. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE ,
considering the issue of attachment of the property, it is held as
follows:
1
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2150
- 29 -
“ 33. Having heard learned Counsel for both the
parties and on perusal of the records, we note that the
Appellants have already invoked their statutory remedy
before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 26 of the
PMLA, which remains pending.
34. It is important to note that the PMLA
provides a comprehensive and self-contained
adjudicatory mechanism. Section 5 enables
Provisional Attachment, Section 8 contemplates
confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority, and
Section 26 provides an appellate remedy before the
Appellate Tribunal. The appellants, in the present
case, have already invoked their statutory remedy
of Appeal, which remains pending.
35. This Court has consistently held that
constitutional or appellate jurisdiction should
ordinarily not be exercised where an efficacious
alternate remedy is available and is actively being
pursued. Reference may be made to Union of India
7
v. Guwahati Carbon Limited , which cautions
against bypassing statutory forums except in cases
of patent illegality or jurisdictional error.
36. We further note that it is undisputed that the
ECIR registered by the ED does not name the
appellants as accused persons. The charge-sheet
filed by the CBI under RC
18(A)/2011/CBI/ACB/BLR also does not array
them as accused, having dropped them in the
supplementary report after finding no material to
proceed. The complaint filed by the ED is predicated
not on any independent act of laundering but on the
allegation that the appellants withdrew certain
sums from the attached bank accounts in violation
of the PAOs, thereby frustrating the recovery of INR
33.80 Crore, alleged to be “proceeds of crime.”
37. The core issue before us is not whether the
appellants' entire banking operations are tainted, but
- 30 -
whether the specific sum of INR 33,80,87,617/- (Thirty-
Three Crore Eighty Lakh Eighty-Seven Thousand Six
Hundred Seventeen Rupees), representing unpaid
consideration for iron ore supplied by AMC, can be treated
as “proceeds of crime” and whether its withdrawal post-
PAO constitutes an offence under Section 3 PMLA. The
apprehension that the entire account balance constitutes
proceeds of crime is misplaced, particularly when the
admitted position is that payments were made and
received through regular banking channels and are duly
reflected in the books of account.
38. Viewed thus, the appropriate course would be to
permit the statutory process to run its route to reach its
logical conclusion. Interference at this stage would
prejudge issues that are squarely within the domain
of the Appellate Tribunal, including whether the
attached property represents “proceeds of crime”
within the meaning of Section 2(1)(u) PMLA and
whether the withdrawals were in violation of law.”
11.1. The High Court of Calcutta in the case of
ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE AND ANOTHER VS. SUMAN
2
CHATTOPADHYAY AND OTHERS , has held as follows:
“ 33. The Provisional Attachment Order dated March
29, 2022 under Section 5(1) of the PMLA, challenged
before the Learned Single Judge, stands confirmed by the
Adjudicating Authority vide order dated September 23,
2022 under Section 8(3). The respondents have availed
statutory appellate remedies under Section 26 before the
Appellate Tribunal (PMLA), New Delhi, where appeals
(Nos. 5087/2022, 5088/2022, 5089/2022 and
5173/2022) remain pending adjudication.
2
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2150
- 31 -
34. It is a settled principle of jurisprudence that
Courts refrain from deciding academic or
infructuous matters, particularly where a
comprehensive statutory mechanism exists for
redressal. In Chhabil Dass Agarwal (supra) the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when a statutory
forum is created by law for redressal of grievances,
a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring
the statutory dispensation. The High Court must not
interfere if there is an adequate efficacious
alternative remedy available unless exceptional
circumstances warrant such interference.
35. The PMLA provides such a complete
adjudicatory hierarchy such as, provisional
attachment under Section 5, confirmation under
Section 8, appeal under section 26 and Special
Court trial. None of the recognized exceptions such
as futile remedy, jurisdictional defect or natural
justice violation are attracted herein.
36. This position is fortified under the PMLA
regime by the Constitution Bench in Vijay Madanlal
Choudhary (supra), which upheld the Act's
constitutional validity and cautioned that writ
courts must exercise utmost restraint against
interfering with provisional attachments, interim
measures to secure proceeds of crime. ‘Reasons to
believe’ requires prima facie satisfaction only,
conclusive proof awaits statutory adjudication.
37. The Adjudicating Authority's confirmation,
despite awareness of writ pendency, underscores
statutory primacy over premature writ intervention.
Therefore, entertaining parallel writ proceedings
post-adjudication would multiply litigation and
frustrate public interest in protecting laundered
assets. Exhaustion of statutory remedies remains
the rule of judicial discipline.”
- 32 -
11.2. The High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of MOKSHIT
CORPORATION THROUGH PARTNER VS. DIRECTORATE OF
3
ENFORCEMENT , while interpreting Sections 8, 26 and 42 of the
Act, which provides a complete and efficacious mechanism whereby
the legality and propriety could be examined, holds as follows:
“8. The principal question, which arises for
consideration before this Court is:
“Whether the present writ petition challenging
the PAO dated 13-3-2026 and the consequential
proceedings initiated under the PMLA is
maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India despite the complete statutory
adjudicatory mechanism provided under the PMLA
?”
9. At the outset, this Court finds considerable force in
the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent-Directorate of Enforcement
regarding the maintainability of the present writ petition.
10. The PMLA has been enacted by the
Parliament with an intent to prevent money-
laundering and to provide for confiscation of property
derived from, or involved in, money-laundering and for
matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The
said enactment categorically provides a complete
adjudicatory mechanism in respect of an order of
provisional attachment. Section 5(5) of the PMLA
mandates filing of a complaint before the adjudicating
authority, which, in terms of Section 8 of the PMLA, is
empowered to examine the legality and validity of the
provisional attachment after issuing notice to the affected
person, considering his reply, affording him an opportunity of
3
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2150
- 33 -
hearing and taking into consideration the material placed
before it.
11. Against the order passed by the adjudicating
authority, the PMLA provides a statutory appeal before
the Appellate Tribunal under Section 26 and a further
appeal before the jurisdictional High Court under
Section 42 of the PMLA. Thus, the PMLA provides a
complete and efficacious statutory mechanism for
adjudication of disputes arising out of provisional
attachment proceedings.
12. The Supreme Court, in Pareena Swarup
(supra), has recognised the adjudicating authority as
an expert statutory forum constituted to determine the
legality of attachment proceedings and observed that
its functions relating to confirmation of provisional
attachment are civil in nature.
13. For proper adjudication, it would be apt to quote
relevant provisions of Sections 2(1)( u ), 5, 8, 26 and 42 of
the PMLA, which read thus:
“ 2. Definitions.- (1) In this Act, unless the context
otherwise requires-xxx
xxx xxx xxx xxx
(u) “proceeds of crime” means any property derive or
obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of
criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value
of any such property or where the such property is taken or
held outside the country, then the property equivalent in
value held within the country or abroad.
Explanation.- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby
clarified that “proceeds of crime” including property not only
derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any
property which may directly or indirectly be derived or
obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the
scheduled offence
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
- 34 -
5. Attachment of property involved in money-
laundering.-
(1) Where the Director or any other officer not below the rank
of Deputy Director authorised by the Director for the
purposes of this section, has reason to believe (the reason
for such belief to be recorded in writing), on the basis of
material in his possession, that-
(a) any person is in possession of any proceeds of crime; and
(b) such proceeds of crime are likely to be concealed,
transferred or dealt with in any manner which may result in
frustrating any proceedings relating to confiscation of such
proceeds of crime under this Chapter , he may, by order in
writing, provisionally attach such property for a period not
exceeding one hundred and eighty days from the date of the
order, in such manner as may be prescribed:
Provided that no such order of attachment shall be made
unless, in relation to the scheduled offence, a report has
been forwarded to a Magistrate under Section 173 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974), or a complaint
has been filed by a person authorised to investigate the
offence mentioned in that Schedule, before a Magistrate or
court for taking cognizance of the scheduled offence, as the
case may be, or a similar report or complaint has been
made or filed under the corresponding law of any other
country:
Provided further that, notwithstanding anything
contained in [first proviso], any property of any person may
be attached under this section if the Director or any other
officer not below the rank of Deputy Director authorised by
him for the purposes of this section has reason to believe
(the reasons for such belief to be recorded in writing), on
the basis of material in his possession, that if such property
involved in money-laundering is not attached immediately
under this Chapter, the non-attachment of the property is
likely to frustrate any proceeding under this Act.]. (Provided
also that for the purposes of computing the period of one
hundred and eighty days, the period during which the
proceedings under this section is stayed by the High Court,
shall be excluded and a further period not exceeding thirty
- 35 -
days from the date of order of vacation of such stay order
shall be counted.
(2) The Director, or any other officer not below the rank of
Deputy Director, shall, immediately after attachment under
sub-section (1), forward a copy of the order, along with the
material in his possession, referred to in that sub-section, to
the adjudicating authority, in a sealed envelope, in the
manner as may be prescribed and such adjudicating
authority shall keep such order and material for such period
as may be prescribed.
(3) Every order of attachment made under sub-section (1) shall
cease to have effect after the expiry of the period specified
in that sub-section or on the date of an order made under
3
[sub-section (3)] of Section 8, whichever is earlier
(4) Nothing in this section shall prevent the person interested in
the enjoyment of the immovable property attached under
sub-section (1) from such enjoyment. Explanation. For the
purposes of this sub-section “person interested”, in relation
to any immovable property, includes all persons claiming or
entitled to claim any interest in the property.
(5) The Director or any other officer who provisionally attaches
any property under sub-section (1) shall, within a period of
thirty days from such attachment, file a complaint stating
the facts of such attachment before the adjudicating
authority
8. Adjudication .-(1) On receipt of a complaint under
sub-section (5) of Section 5, or applications made under
sub-section (4) of Section 17 or under sub-section (10) of
Section 18, if the adjudicating authority has reason to
believe that any person has committed an offence under
Section 3 or is in possession of proceeds of crime], he may
serve a notice of not less than thirty days on such person
calling upon him to indicate the sources of his income,
earning or assets, out of which or by means of which he has
acquired the property attached under sub-section (1) of
Section 5, or, seized or frozen under Section 17 or Section
18, the evidence on which he relies and other relevant
information and particulars, and to show cause why all or
any of such properties should not be declared to be the
properties involved in money-laundering and confiscated by
- 36 -
the Central Government : Provided that where a notice
under this sub-section specifies any property as being held
by a person on behalf of any other person, a copy of such
notice shall also be served upon such other person:
Provided further that where such property is held jointly
by more than one person, such notice shall be served to all
persons holding such property.
(2) The adjudicating authority shall, after—
(a) considering the reply, if any, to the notice issued
under sub-section (1);
(b) hearing the aggrieved person and the Director or
any other officer authorised by him in this behalf,
and
(c) taking into account all relevant materials placed
on record before him , by an order, record a finding
whether all or any of the properties referred to in
the notice issued under sub-section (1) are involved
in money-laundering:
Provided that if the property is claimed by a
person, other than a person to whom the notice had
been issued, such person shall also be given an
opportunity of being heard to prove that the
property is not involved in money-laundering.
(3) Where the adjudicating authority decides under sub-
section (2) that any property is involved in money-
laundering, he shall, by an order in writing, confirm the
attachment of the property made under sub-section (1) of
Section 5 or retention of property or record seized or frozen
under Section 17 or Section 18 and record a finding to that
effect, whereupon such attachment or retention or freezing
of the seized or frozen property or record shall—
(a) continue during investigation for a period not
exceeding three hundred and sixty-five days or
the pendency of the proceedings relating to any
offence under this Act before a court or under the
corresponding law of any other country, before
- 37 -
the competent court of criminal jurisdiction
outside India, as the case may be; and
(b) become final after an order of confiscation is
passed under sub-section (5) or sub-section (7)
of Section 8 or Section 58B or sub-section (2A) of
Section 60 by the (Special Court).
Explanation.—For the purposes of computing the
period of three hundred and sixty-five days under clause
(a), the period during which the investigation is stayed
by any court under any law for the time being in force
shall be excluded.
(4) Where the provisional order of attachment made
under sub-section (1) of Section 5 has been confirmed
under sub-section (3), the Director or any other officer
authorised by him in this behalf shall forthwith take the
possession of the property attached under Section 5 or
frozen under subsection (1A) of Section 17, in such manner
as may be prescribed:
Provided that if it is not practicable to take possession of
a property frozen under sub-section (1A) of Section 17, the
order of confiscation shall have the same effect as if the
property had been taken possession of.
(5) Where on conclusion of a trial of an offence under
this Act, the Special Court finds that the offence of money-
laundering has been committed, it shall order that such
property involved in the money-laundering or which has
been used for commission of the offence of money-
laundering shall stand confiscated to the Central
Government.
(6) Where on conclusion of a trial under this Act, the
Special Court finds that the offence of money-laundering has
not taken place or the property is not involved in money-
laundering, it shall order release of such property to the
person entitled to receive it.
(7) Where the trial under this Act cannot be conducted
by reason of the death of the accused or the accused being
declared a proclaimed offender or for any other reason or
having commenced but could not be concluded, the Special
- 38 -
Court shall, on an application moved by the Director or a
person claiming to be entitled to possession of a property in
respect of which an order has been passed under sub-
section (3) of Section 8, pass appropriate orders regarding
confiscation or release of the property, as the case may be,
involved in the offence of money-laundering after having
regard to the material before it.
(8) Where a property stands confiscated to the Central
Government under sub-section (5), the Special Court, in
such manner as may be prescribed, may also direct the
Central Government to restore such confiscated property or
part thereof of a claimant with a legitimate interest in the
property, who may have suffered a quantifiable loss as a
result of the offence of money laundering:
Provided that the Special Court shall not consider such
claim unless it is satisfied that the claimant has acted in
good faith and has suffered the loss despite having taken all
reasonable precautions and is not involved in the offence of
money laundering:
Provided further that the Special Court may, if it thinks
fit, consider the claim of the claimant for the purposes of
restoration of such properties during the trial of the case in
such manner as may be prescribed.”
26. Appeals to Appellate Tribunal. —(1) Save as
otherwise provided in sub-section (3), the Director or any
person aggrieved by an order made by the adjudicating
authority under this Act, may prefer an appeal to the
Appellate Tribunal.
(2) Any (reporting entity) aggrieved by any order of the
Director made under sub-section (2) of Section 13, may
prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal.
(3) Every appeal preferred under sub-section (1) or sub-
section (2) shall be filed within a period of forty-five days
from the date on which a copy of the order made by the
adjudicating authority or Director is received and it shall be
in such form and be accompanied by such fee as may be
prescribed:
- 39 -
Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may after giving an
opportunity of being heard entertain an appeal after the
expiry of the said period of forty-five days if it is satisfied
that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that
period.
(4) On receipt of an appeal under sub-section (1), or
sub-section (2), the Appellate Tribunal may, after giving the
parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass
such orders thereon as it thinks fit, confirming, modifying or
setting aside the order appealed against.
(5) The Appellate Tribunal shall send a copy of every
order made by it to the parties to the appeal and to the
concerned adjudicating authority or the Director, as the case
may be.
(6) The appeal filed before the Appellate Tribunal under
sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be dealt with by it as
expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made by it
to dispose of the appeal finally within six months from the
date of filing of the appeal.
42. Appeal to High Court. —Any person aggrieved by
any decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal may file an
appeal to the High Court within sixty days from the date of
communication of the decision or order of the Appellate
Tribunal to him on any question of law or fact arising out of
such order:
Provided that the High Court may, if it is satisfied that
the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing
the appeal within the said period, allow it to be filed within a
further period not exceeding sixty days.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “High
Court” means—
(i) The High Court within the jurisdiction of which the
aggrieved party ordinarily resides or carries on business
or personally works for gain; and
(ii) Where the Central Government is the aggrieved party,
the High Court within the jurisdiction of which the
respondent, or in a case where there are more than one
- 40 -
respondent, any of the respondents, ordinarily resides or
carries on business or personally works for gain.”
14. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions
of the PMLA would show that the Parliament has
provided a complete adjudicatory mechanism against
every provisional attachment order. The legality of the
provisional attachment is required to be examined, in
the first instance, by the adjudicating authority after
affording full opportunity of hearing to the affected
person. The order passed by the adjudicating authority
is further amenable to appeal before the Appellate
Tribunal and thereafter before the jurisdictional High
Court. Thus, the legislative scheme clearly indicates
that questions relating to the legality, validity and
correctness of a provisional attachment are intended
to be adjudicated within the statutory framework
itself.
15. In the case of Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse (supra),
the Supreme Court held that where a statute provides
an efficacious alternative remedy before a competent
forum, the High Court should ordinarily decline to
entertain a writ petition unless exceptional
circumstances are demonstrated. In para 5, it has been
held that:
“5. This Court in a large number of cases has deprecated
the practice of the High Courts entertaining writ petitions
questioning legality of the show-cause notices stalling
enquiries as proposed and retarding investigative process to
find actual facts with the participation and in the presence of
the parties. Unless the High Court is satisfied that the
show-cause notice was totally non est in the eye of
the law for absolute want of jurisdiction of the
authority to even investigate into facts, writ petitions
should not be entertained for the mere asking and as
a matter of routine, and the writ petitioner should
invariably be directed to respond to the show-cause
notice and take all stands highlighted in the writ
petition. Whether the show-cause notice was founded
on any legal premises, is a jurisdictional issue which
can even be urged by the recipient of the notice and
such issues also can be adjudicated by the authority
- 41 -
issuing the very notice initially, before the aggrieved
could approach the court . Further, when the court passes
an interim order it should be careful to see that the
statutory functionaries specially and specifically constituted
for the purpose are not denuded of powers and authority to
initially decide the matter and ensure that ultimate relief
which may or may not be finally granted in the writ petition
is not accorded to the writ petitioner even at the threshold
by the interim protection granted.”
16. In the case of Rai Foundation (supra), the Delhi High
Court has held that:
“11. A perusal of Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that
the order passed under sub-Section 1 is a provisional
measure and valid for maximum period of 180 days. The
provisional attachment has to be approved by the
adjudicating authority after proper adjudication within 180
days. The act envisages three layers of the grievance
redressal in addition to safeguards incorporated in Section
5(1) of the Act. The adjudicating authority may confirm
or set aside the provisional attachment order on the
basis of material produced by the parties before it. If
adjudicating authority confirms the order of
provisional attachment, the Act envisages appeal
before the Appellate Tribunal. Section 42 of the Act
provides further appeal to the High Court. Thus, it is
clear that petitioner has an effective alternative
remedy upto the High Court by way of adjudicating
proceedings, appeal to the Appellate Tribunal and
finally, appeal to the High Court. Petitioner can raise
all the pleas including that of the jurisdiction before
the adjudicating authority.
12. It is trite law that Article 226 of the Constitution of
India vests wide discretion in the writ court to entertain the
writ petition on any grievance and to grant appropriate
relief. It is an extraordinary jurisdiction vested in the writ
court. The writ courts observe self-imposed restraint
in exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226.
Availability of alternative remedy is not a bar to
entertain a writ petition. However, ordinarily, the writ
petition is not entertained under Article 226 if the
aggrieved person has an efficacious and effective
remedy provided by concerned statute whereunder an
adverse decision is taken against the person, which
- 42 -
he seeks to assail in the writ petition.
Notwithstanding, availability of alternative remedy in
a case of exceptional nature or a case of glaring
injustice, writ court can entertain a writ petition.
However, that would not mean that writ jurisdiction
can be exercised in every case, where alternative
remedies are available to safeguard the interest of the
aggrieved person. It is one thing to say that in
exercise of power vested in it under Article 226 of the
Constitution, this High Court entertain a writ petition
against any order passed by or action taken by the
State and/or its agency or any public authority or
order passed by quasi-judicial authority and it is
altogether different thing to say that each and every
petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
must be entertained by the High Court as a matter of
course ignoring the fact that aggrieved person has an
effective alternative remedy. Rather, it is settled law
that when a statutory forum is created by law for
redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be
entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.”
17. The High Court of Madras in the matter of Smt
Soodamani Dorai v. The Joint Director of Enforcement
(PMLA), Directorate of Enforcement , 2018 SCC OnLine Mad
3138 held thus at para 13:
“13. In the case of Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd. v. The
Joint Director, ED, Bangalore [decided on 4-10-2017 in WP
No. 11544 of 2017], the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka
has strengthened that the provisions of the Prevention of
Money Laundering Act, have a retrospective effect, as
follows:—
“28. In the instant case, as the adjudication process has
not yet started and the matter is at the stage of show-cause
notice and provisional attachment, it is not proper for this
Court to express any opinion on this aspect of the matter. It
is also evident from the show-cause notice that allegations of
money-laundering are made in respect of transactions
spanning over a period of time, even beyond the period when
the amendment was brought about. This is evident from
paras 9.40 and 9.46 of the show-cause notice.
29. It is well established by catena of decisions of
the Supreme Court that High Court will not entertain a
- 43 -
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, if an
effective alternative remedy is available to the
aggrieved person or the statute under which the action
complained of has been taken, itself contains a
mechanism for redressal of the grievance. This
principle is well enunciated in the case of NIVEDITA
SHARMA v. CELLULAR OPERATORS OF INDIA, (2011)
14 SCC 337 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 947. In fact, the
Supreme Court in the case of SPECIAL DIRECTOR v.
MOHD. GHULAM GHOUSE, (2004) 3 SCC 440 : 2004 SCC
(Cri) 826 : (2004) 120 Comp Cas 467, has deprecated
the practice of High Courts entertaining writ petitions
questioning the legality of the show-cause notices,
thereby stalling enquiries retarding investigative
process initiated to find actual facts with the
participation and in the presence of the parties unless
the petitioner established absolute want of jurisdiction
of authority to even investigate into facts. It is
observed in this context that writ petitions should not
be entertained and the petitioner should invariably be
directed to respond to the show-cause notice.
30. It is necessary to notice that at the stage of
provisional attachment under Section 5(1) of PML Act, a
person interested in the enjoyment of the suspect immovable
property is not deprived of its enjoyment. Taking over
possession of the attached property would arise upon
confirmation of the provisional attachment. On an analysis
of several provisions of the Act in particular Section 5,
Section 8 and Section 26, it becomes clear that the
legislative intent underlying the sequential provisions
for provisional attachment, confirmation of such
attachment and eventual confiscation or for retention
of a seized property and also providing remedy of
appeal to the appellate authority, is to balance public
interest with the individual interest of the person
against whom allegations are made and action is
initiated. A mechanism is provided under the Act for
redressal of the grievance at different stages that is to
say before the adjudicating authority at 25 the first
instance and latter before the Appellate Tribunal. It is
only when a person is aggrieved by the order of the
Appellate Tribunal that he may file an appeal to the
High Court as per Section 42 of PML Act. When such is
the mechanism provided for the effective redressal of
the grievance within the four corners of the provisions
of the PML Act, petitioner is not justified in rushing to
this Court at the stage of show-cause notice and the
provisional order of attachment. Therefore, it is not
appropriate for this Court to enter into various
contentions urged by petitioner.”
- 44 -
18. This Court in the matter of Govind Kumar Kedia
v. Union of India (WPC No. 621/2026 decided on 15-5-
2026), after placing reliance on various decisions
rendered by the Supreme Court as also the High
Courts, dismissed the petition on the ground of
maintainability. In the said decision, this Court held thus at
para 26:
“26. In the aforesaid circumstances of the case and
availability of alternative statutory remedy of appeal,
this Court is of the considered opinion that the challenge
to the Provisional Attachment Order cannot be
entertained in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution. The Act provides a complete and
efficacious adjudicatory mechanism whereby the legality
of the provisional attachment is required to be examined
in the first instance by the adjudicating authority under
Section 8, with further statutory appeals under Sections
26 and 42 of the Act. The petitioner has failed to
establish any exceptional circumstance, such as patent
lack of jurisdiction, breach of principles of natural justice
or manifest arbitrariness, warranting interference by this
Court at this stage. In view of the settled principle that
where an efficacious statutory remedy is available, the
High Court should ordinarily decline to exercise its
extraordinary writ jurisdiction, this Court is not inclined
to entertain the present writ petition and leaves it open
to the petitioner to avail the remedies available under
the PMLA-2002.”
19. The authorities relied upon by the petitioners
also do not advance their case. There can be no
quarrel with the proposition that the availability of an
alternative statutory remedy does not oust the
jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. However, the issue before this
Court is not one of absence of jurisdiction but of the
exercise of judicial discretion. In the facts of the
present case, the petitioners have failed to
demonstrate the existence of any exceptional
circumstance warranting bypass of the complete
statutory mechanism provided under the PMLA. The
decisions relied upon by the petitioners were rendered
- 45 -
in their own peculiar factual background where
exceptional circumstances were found to exist
justifying exercise of writ jurisdiction. The same,
therefore, do not assist the petitioners in the facts of
the present case.
20. Applying the well settled principle of law to
the facts of the present case and in view of the
foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the present writ petition challenging the
PAO dated 13-3-2026 and the consequential
proceedings initiated under the PMLA, cannot be
entertained in exercise of the extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The
PMLA provides a complete and efficacious statutory
mechanism whereby the legality and validity of the
provisional attachment are required to be examined, in
the first instance, by the adjudicating authority under
Section 8, with further statutory remedies of appeal
under Sections 26 and 42 of the PMLA.
21. The petitioners have failed to make out any
exceptional circumstance warranting interference by
this Court at this stage, such as patent lack of
jurisdiction, violation of the principles of natural
justice or violation of any provision of the PMLA.
22. In view of the settled principle that where an
efficacious statutory remedy is available, the High
Court should ordinarily decline to exercise its
extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution, this Court is not inclined to entertain the
present writ petition.”
(Emphasis supplied at each instance)
In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court as
afore-quoted and the judgments of the two different High Courts,
- 46 -
there is no warrant to interfere with the challenge to the order
passed by the Adjudicating Authority. It is for the petitioners to
avail such remedy as is available in law.
13. The second submission by the learned counsel for the
petitioners in all the petitions is that, the Adjudicating Authority is
coram non judice, on the ground that the Adjudicating Authority
consists of a single non-legal member. However, the Apex Court in
the case of THE UNION OF INDIA VS. J. SEKAR in CIVIL
APPEAL NO.1548/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES , has reserved
these cases concerning the issue regarding coram non judice.
Therefore, as the issue is now projected before this Court, I deem it
appropriate to hold my hands at this juncture and reserve the issue
to be answered, once the Apex Court renders its verdict, in the
aforesaid civil appeals.
14. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
a. The writ petitions are dismissed.
- 47 -
b. Petitioners are reserved liberty to avail such remedy as is
available in law, in the light of the observations made in
the course of the order.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
nvj