The High Court must refrain from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 when an alternative remedy is available, unless extraordinary circumstances exist.

JUDGMENT :

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

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 (for short 'PML Act'), evenif there is an arguable case, when there is an efficacious alternative remedy available to the aggrieved person.

2. The petitioners received Ext.P1 provisional attachment order under Section 5(1) of the PML Act. Petitioners submitted Ext.P2 detailed reply with supporting documents. According to the petitioners, the properties owned by the petitioners cannot be proceeded against, as the same cannot be termed as 'proceeds of crime'. It is also the case of the petitioners that they purchased the properties after paying the entire sale consideration, and are the absolute owners of the property. Therefore, it is contended that those properties cannot be termed as 'proceeds of crime'. Hence, the provisional attachment order is unsustainable, was the contention. But, the adjudicating authority, without considering Ext.P2 reply, issued Ext.P3 order confirming the provisional attachment order, under Section 8 of the PML Act, is the grievance. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition (Crl.) is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Advocate Cristy Therasa Suresh representing the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3.

4. When this Writ petition came up for consideration, this Court requested the petitioners' counsel to address the maintainability of this writ petition when an efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioners. Therefore, this Court heard in detail about the maintainability of this writ petition.

5. Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Adv. Babu S. Nair argued the matter in detail. The counsel submitted that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be invoked in cases where there is a total lack of jurisdiction in issuing the orders, and where the impugned orders are not sustainable. The counsel for the petitioners took me through the impugned orders and also the supporting documents produced along with this writ petition. Adv. Babu S. Nair argued that the action of respondents 1 to 3 to proceed against the properties of the petitioners is illegal, arbitrary, and unjust, and the very inception of the proceedings against the properties of the petitioners is per se unsustainable and liable to be interfered with by this Court. The counsel submitted that, though the Ext.P3 order confirming the provisional attachment order is appealable under Section 26 of the PML Act before the appellate tribunal, this writ petition is maintainable because the initiation of the proceedings at the inception itself is illegal. According to the counsel, the petitioners have no connection with the crime registered by the Enforcement Directorate or the predicate crimes registered by the police. It is also submitted that, for a property to be qualified as ‘proceeds of crime’, it must have a direct nexus with the crimes committed, or the same should have been obtained or derived on account of the commission of the offences. Adv. Babu S. Nair submitted that the petitioners purchased the properties from the accused in the predicate offence on 04.05.2016. The accused persons in that case purchased the said properties