1. These writ petitions challenge a common impugned order dated 29th April, 2015 passed by the adjudicating authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short the PML Act) whereby it was held that the appellants have committed the Scheduled offence, generated ‘proceeds of crime’ and laundered them, thus the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) was confirmed and an order of confiscation was passed under sub-section (5) to sub-section (7) of Section 8 or Section 58B or sub-section (2A) of Section 60 of the PML Act.

2. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent about the maintainability of the writ petitions in view of the alternate remedy of filing an appeal under Section 26 of the PML Act and thereafter further appeal being provided from the order of the Appellate Tribunal to be heard by the High Court. Reliance is placed on United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon & Ors. (2010) 8 SCC 110.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that since the impugned order is without jurisdiction the remedy of filing an appeal under Section 26 PML Act is not an appropriate remedy and the jurisdictional error commit