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 committed by the adjudicating authority can be corrected only by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is stated that the impugned order notes the pleadings verbatim and thereafter in two paragraphs the discussion and conclusion have been summed up which are reproduced as under:

“Discussions:

1. FIR and the charge sheet has been filed and the sections include schedule offences which have been prima facie committed.

2. Statements of the individual/persons recorded indicate prima facie case.

3. There is inter-linkage and inter connectivity in the transactions with various concerns of the group. There is cross holdings of the funds amongst group concerns.

4. Aggregate loss up to financial year 2012-2013 is `2133.708 crores and group net worth is a negative figure of `1891.202 as on 31.3.2013. Funds were collected by the group companies by false promise of high returns in various schemes which were apparently was not possible leading to prima facie case that this is the prima facie case of schedule offence.

5. Various schemes were floated which were not permissible under the SEBI/RBI etc law and criminal cases have been filed.

6. Commissions of `378.89 crores have been paid to various agent for arranging funds in the scheme. ED will consider action against such persons also as per law under PMLA.

7. Money has flown to other persons also which will be examined by ED for appropriate action.

8. Ones under Section 8(1) has not been discharged.

9. Conditions of Section 5 & 8 have been complied with.

10. There is no requirement under law to convey the reasons recorded to the defendants.

11. Complainant apparently will examine the case thoroughly and see if any other party is also required to be made defendant. If so it will take appropriate action as per law and pass fresh PAO with regard to such other parties.

12. Perusal of the PAO, OC, arguments of both the sides lead to the conclusion that prima facie case for confirmation of PAO is made out.

13. The case is not only for involvement of persons in money laundering process against whom case is filed with the Court/FIR but PMLA covers those persons also who are in possession of proceeds of crime.

14. Merely because investments are declared in the accounts does not lead to the conclusion that money laundering is not involved.

15. Offences under the provisions of IPC independently also are covered under Schedule offence if these find place in the schedule.

16. The case against the defendants is also that defendants collected money/deposit in violation of SEBI/RBI/guidelines of statutory bodies.

17. SEBI has prohibited them and now they are not doing so.

18. D-27 has not submitted reply with reference to notice u/s 8(1) on merits.

19. I have gone through the OC along with relied upon documents, PAO, statements rec