Judicial review mandates hearing all parties with interests in property before confirming attachment orders under PMLA.

EASWARAN S., J -------------------------------------

W.P. (C) No.25997 of 2025 ------------------------------------

Dated this the 16^th day of December, 2025 JUDGMENT The petitioner entered into an agreement of sale with respondents 5 and 6. On 26.07.2024 agreed to purchase of property for 12,00,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve crores only). Pursuant to the agreement of sale, a total amount of Rs.11,67,05,500/- (Rupees Eleven crores sixty seven lakhs five thousand five hundred only) was paid to the respondents 5 and 6. In the meantime, on 16.08.2024, the District Collector, Thrissur being the Assistant Competent Authority under the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (hereinafter called, ‘BUDS Act’, for short) issued an order of attachment in respect of the properties. This order of attachment was presumably issued based on the general order of the competent authority under the BUDS Act, ordering attachment of all movable and immovable properties held by Kannur Urban Nidhi Limited and their Directors as also its staff including the properties acquired in their name in view of the initiation of various proceedings under Section 409 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 read with Section 21 of the BUDS Act. Based on the said provisional order of attachment, the first respondent being the competent authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter called ‘PMLA Act’, for short) on 11.11.2024 issued a provisional order of attachment. In terms of Section 5 of the PMLA Act, the provisional order of attachment is required to be confirmed within a period of 180 days. The said order was confirmed on 21.05.2025. In the meantime, on 22.05.2025, the competent authority under the BUDS Act released the order of attachment. Therefore, it is contended that the basis on which the order of attachment was issued by the competent authority under the PMLA Act cannot be sustained because the substratum of the order of attachment is closed. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the following reliefs:

“(a) Declare the attachment effected and proceedings initiated by respondents nos.1 to 3 over and against the property comprehended by Exhibit P1 Sale Deed and Exhibit P2 Agreement for Sale, are illegal;

(b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining respondents nos.1 to 3 from proceeding against the property comprehended by Exhibit P1 Sale Deed and Exhibit P2 Agreement for Sale; and further commanding respondents nos.1 to 3 to forthwith lift the attachment effected by them on it as also release it from attachment thereof;

(c) Dispense the production of English Translation of Malayalam Exhibits; and (d) Grant such other and further reliefs as are deemed just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case including the costs of this proceedings.”

2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the third respondent contending that in terms of Section 8 of the PMLA Act, the competent authority has adjudicated the question as to whether the provisional order of attachment should be confirmed or not. It is also submitted that if a person is aggrieved by the provisional order of attachment, against the final order confirming the order of provisional attachment, a person can file an appeal in terms of Section 26 of the Act before the Appellate Triabunal and a further second appeal before this Court under section 42 of the PMLA Act. Therefore, it is contended that in view of the availability of the alternate remedy, this writ petition is not maintainable.

3. Heard Sri.Ashok Shenoy B., learned counsel appear