IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) NO.14139 OF 2025

In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the

Constitution of India.

RSP Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar …. Petitioner

-Versus-

Deputy Director, Enforcement …. Opp. Parties

Directorate, Government of India &

Others

Advocates appeared in this case:

For Petitioner : M/s. S. Biswal, R. Ray, S. Senapati, A.A.

Mishra & A. Guru, Advocates

For Opp. Parties : Mr. B. Nayak, Advocate

[OP No.1] CORAM:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD

J U D G M E N T

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of hearing & judgment : 18.11.2025

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD,J Petitioner-Company is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for laying a challenge to the order of provisional attachment bearing No.3/2025 dated 29.04.2025 issued under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 qua properties described in the schedule to the petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the adjudicating authority under the Act vide order dated 06.10.2025, a copy whereof avails at Annexure-11, has excluded the petition properties from the purview of proceedings under the Act and therefore, petitioner- company may not be driven to the Special Court under Section 8(7) avoidably.

3. Learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the OPs resists the petition contending that once there is a provisional attachment, those who are aggrieved thereby have to go before the Special Court, which will have expertise in the matter, and seek redressal of their grievance. He also tells that this Court itself may not undertake the validity of attachment order, there being efficacious alternate remedy.

In support of this, he presses into service the decision of Apex Court in PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank, (2024) 6 SCC 579.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

4.1. Firstly, the plea of alternative remedy is not treated as a China Wall against exercise of writ jurisdiction invariably. It all depends upon facts & circumstances of individual case as to whether the Writ Court should undertake the examination of matter. If sufficient evidentiary material is available on record and a fair adjudication can take place on that basis, the plea of alternate remedy would pale into insignificance. In PHR Invent Educational Society supra, heavily banked upon by the learned Panel Counsel, there is nothing that runs counter to this view. Added, the right to property is constitutionally guaranteed under Article 300A, as expansively construed by the Apex Court in K.T. Plantation Private Limited v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2011 SC 3430. When an aggrieved citizen airs his legitimate grievance for judicial review, the Writ Court cannot relegate him to some other forum by quoting some jurisprudential theories. Countenancing a contra contention would defeat the object for which constitutional jurisdiction is created.

4.2. There is force in the submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-company that the subject properties are liable to be excluded from the purview of PMLA proceedings because of District Sub-Registrar’s e-mail dated 27.05.2025 that the subject properties have already changed hands, having been sold to different persons way back in the year 2022 before the registration of instant case. The company has bought these properties in the public auction held at the hands of Addl. District Magistrate on 09.10.2018 under the Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2011. That being the position, there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for roping in the scheduled properties enlisted in the immediate succeeding paragraph, within the ambit of att