Availability of statutory remedy does not preclude writ jurisdiction if interim orders had made administrative actions subject to court outcome.

The Appellant challenged a Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) issued under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) via a writ petition

The Appellant argued that the property in question was mortgaged to them and subject to proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, thereby rendering the PAO without jurisdiction

On 01.09.2025, a learned Single Judge passed an interim order stating that any subsequent order by the Adjudicating Authority would be subject to the writ petition's outcome

However, on 17.03.2026, the Single Judge disposed of the writ petition, relegating the Appellant to the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 26 of the PMLA based on the "nature of adjudication" conducted by the Authority

The Appellant filed this Intra-Court Appeal against that disposal

1. Whether a Writ Court is legally compelled to decide a matter on merits, rather than relegating a party to a statutory remedy, solely because an interim order was previously passed making the lower authority's action subject to the writ outcome.

2. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in relegating the Appellant to a statutory appeal without providing an explicit finding or reasoned justification regarding why discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 was declined.

The Court applied the principles of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, noting that while legislative fetters cannot limit this power, the Court must observe self-imposed restrictions regarding the availability of an "equally efficacious statutory remedy"

The Court referred to Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), which provides a statutory appellate mechanism against orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 8

The Court balanced the principle of discretionary jurisdiction with the "settled legal principles" of maintainability, bona fides, and public interest

The Division Bench reasoned that there is no absolute legal compulsion for a Writ Court to decide a case finally just because an interim order was granted

It acknowledged that while a Writ Court can relegate a petitioner to a statutory remedy even after passing interim orders, such a decision must be justified

In this case, the Single Judge used the phrase "nature of the adjudication which has taken place" to justify the relegation but failed to elaborate on what that nature was or why it precluded the exercise of writ jurisdiction

The Bench noted that the challenge involved a jurisdictional question—whether property under SARFAESI could be attached under PMLA—which required a more reasoned consideration of whether the alternative remedy was appropriate in place of judicial review

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Impugned Order dated 17.03.2026. The Writ Petition (W.P.(C) 12692/2025) was restored to its original number, and the learned Single Judge was requested to decide the matter afresh, including the plea of maintainability