2024 (8) TMI 1592 - HC - Money Laundering

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Money Laundering - challenge to Ext. P3 order issued by the fourth respondent Adjudicating Authority u/s 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 - HELD THAT - Though petitioner alleges that the property which was succeeded by him and not even remotely connected with any proceeds of crime had been provisionally attached and confirmed by the impugned order without even referring to the contentions advanced under Section 26 of the Act petitioner has a remedy before the Appellate Tribunal. Since an effective and alternative remedy is provided under the statute the contentions raised by the petitioner can be adjudicated by the said Tribunal. When an alternative and efficacious remedy is available normally this Court should avoid interfering or exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No exceptional circumstances are pointed out to warrant invocation of the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 in the instant case - the petitioner ought to be relegated to his alternative remedies. This writ petition is dismissed reserving the liberty of the petitioner to approach the Appellate Tribunal in accordance with law.

Summary

The Kerala High Court, through Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, dismissed the writ petition challenging Ext. P3 order passed by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ("the Act"). The petitioner contended that the attached property, succeeded by him and unrelated to proceeds of crime, was provisionally attached without due consideration. The Court held that under Section 26 of the Act, the petitioner has an effective and alternative remedy before the Appellate Tribunal. Emphasizing that "when an alternative and efficacious remedy is available, normally, this Court should avoid interfering or exercising jurisdiction under Article 226," the Court found no exceptional circumstances warranting its intervention. The Court also noted that the Act provides for condonation of delay in filing appeals, thus declining to extend the appeal period. Consequently, the petition was dismissed with liberty to approach the Appellate Tribunal "in accordance with law."