Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan declined to entertain a writ petition challenging a confirmation order issued under Section 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The court held that the petitioners had an efficacious alternative remedy under the statute and that invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution was unwarranted in the circumstances. The petitioners sought judicial interference with a provisional attachment order that had been confirmed by the adjudicating authority, contending that their property was not linked to any crime. However, the court determined that the statutory appellate process must be exhausted first. The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable. The judgment grants liberty to the petitioners to pursue their statutory appeal.

The matter arose from a challenge to a confirmation order issued under Section 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), confirming a provisional attachment of immovable property.

Also Read: "No Individual Should Be Forcibly Subjected to Narco-Analysis": Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court's Directive, Affirms Voluntariness and Safeguards as Prerequisites

The petitioners received a provisional attachment order under Section 5(1) of the PMLA. In response, they submitted a detailed reply along with supporting documentation, asserting that the properties in question were not derived from any criminal activity and could not be classified as "proceeds of crime" under the Act. According to the petitioners, they had purchased the properties by paying the full sale consideration and were the lawful and absolute owners.

Despite the reply, the adjudicating authority passed an order under Section 8 of the PMLA confirming the provisional attachment. The petitioners challenged the confirmation order in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court.

The primary contention raised by the petitioners was that the initiation of proceedings under the PMLA was illegal ab initio. They argued that since they had purchased the properties in 2016 and the alleged predicate offence occurred after that, the attached properties could not be categorized as proceeds of crime. They further stated that they were not accused in any predicate offence registered by the police or the Enforcement Directorate.

Citing judicial precedents, the petitioners argued that a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable even when a statutory appeal exists if the impugned order is alleged to be without jurisdiction or suffers from fundamental legal infirmities. The petitioners relied on the judgments in Satish Motilal Bidri v. Union of India & Ors. [2024 (4) KLT 198], Davy Varghese & Another v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement & Others [2025 (1) KLT 223], and Pavana Dibbur v. The Directorate of Enforcement [AIR 2024 SC 117].

The respondents, represented by Advocate Cristy Therasa Suresh, opposed the writ petition, arguing that an efficacious alternative remedy exists under the PMLA. It was pointed out that the petitioners had the statutory right to appeal the confirmation order to the appellate tribunal under Section 26 of the PMLA, and further, an appeal to the High Court is provided under Section 42.

The respondents also referred to a Division Bench decision in W.A. No.1450/2023, which reiterated the principle that the existence of a statutory remedy precludes the exercise of writ jurisdiction unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated.

The court carefully reviewed the statutory scheme under the PMLA. It noted that the Act constitutes a comprehensive code providing for adjudication by an authority under Section 8, appellate review by a tribunal under Section 26, and further appeal to the High Court under Section 42.

The petitioners contended that judicial precedent mandated interference by the High Court under Article 226. They relied heavily on the Satish Motilal Bidri judgment. However, the court noted that the Supreme Court had stayed the operation of that judgment, observing that the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition in the presence of an alternative efficacious remedy.

Additionally, the court cited its own prior judgements in Controller of Examination, Kannur and another v. Sreya N [2021(5) KHC 537] and Union Bank of India v. K.J. Jose and Others [2022 (2) KHC 739], which stated judicial restraint in the presence of statutory remedies.

In addressing Davy Varghese, the court recognized the discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction but reiterated that each case must be assessed on its own facts. The court found no extraordinary circumstances in the present case that would warrant bypassing the statutory appellate framework.

The court stated in clear terms: "The short point to be decided in this Writ Petition is whether this Court should exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the decision of the adjudicating authority under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002... when there is an efficacious alternative remedy available to the aggrieved person."

It was further observed: "Admittedly, the impugned order is an order passed by the adjudicating authority under Section 8 of the PML Act. It is also an admitted fact that an appeal is maintainable against such orders to the appellate tribunal constituted under Section 25 of the PML Act."

"The PML Act is a complete code in which there is an adjudication provided under Section 8, an appeal is provided under Section 26, and a further appeal is provided to this Court as per Section 42 of the PML Act."

The court held the principle of judicial self-restraint: "The jurisdiction of this Court may be wide, but if this Court interferes in each and every case in which there is an illegality or impropriety, this Court will be burdened with litigation."

Regarding precedents cited, the court stated: "In the light of the above interim order of the apex court, it is not proper for this Court to rely on the judgment in Satish Motilal Bidri’s case... The Apex Court clearly stated that the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition when an alternative equally efficacious statutory remedy was available."

About the Davy Varghese decision, the court noted: "The learned Judge interfered with the order in that particular case, invoking the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution... That itself shows that there is no dictum laid down... that in all cases... this Court should interfere..."

On the scope of discretion: "I am not saying that this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with an order passed by the adjudicating authority under Section 8 of the PML Act. Each case is to be decided based on the facts in that case. The Court has to exercise its discretion."

"Every illegal order need not be entertained by this Court by invoking the powers under Article 226... especially when the PML Act is a complete Code, containing provisions for an appeal..."

Also Read: Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be A Shield Against Legitimate Corruption Probe | Orissa High Court Dismisses IAS Officer’s Plea To Quash CBI Investigation At Preliminary Stage

The court issued the following final direction:

"This writ petition is to be dismissed, as not maintainable. All the contentions raised by the petitioners in this writ petition are left open, and they are free to agitate the same before the appellate tribunal in accordance with law."

Additionally, the judgment records: "This Court need not invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution against an order under Section 8 of the PML Act unless there is an extraordinary situation."

"Granting liberty to the petitioners to raise all the contentions before the appellate tribunal, this writ petition is dismissed."

Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Sri. Babu S. Nair, Smt. Smitha Babu, Sri. P.A. Rajesh, Shri. Pranav, Sri. K.P. Dhaneesh, Shri. Siddharth Karun Pisharody, Smt. Farsana Noushad

For the Respondents: Advocate Jaisankar V. Nair (Standing Counsel), Smt. Christy Theresa Suresh, Smt. O.M. Shalina (DSGI), Smt. Seetha S (Senior Public Prosecutor)

Case Title: Mohankumar K & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:43225

Case Number: WP(Crl.) No. 722 of 2025

Bench: Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan