Punjab and Haryana High Court answers: Can High Court entertain writ against ED's provisional attachment when alternate remedy is available under PMLA?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case MGF Developments Limited v. Directorate of Enforcementand Another observed and has stated that when an alternative remedy is available under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002, PMLA against Provisional Attachment Order, PAO issued by the Directorate of Enforcement, it would not be appropriate for it to entertain a writ petition filed even before the statutory 30 days' period which being from the date when PAO has been passed.

The section 5(5) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002, PMLA stipulates that Director or any other officer of the Enforcement Directorate, ED who provisionally attaches any property shall, within a period of 30 days from such attachment to file a complaint stating the facts of such attachment before the Adjudicating Authority.

The Division bench comprising of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetarpal was hearing the present matter.

The bench in the case observed and has explained that, 'The jurisdiction of the Constitutional Courts to entertain the petition at any stage is plenary. However, there are self imposed limitations which should be followed by the said Court.'

The court in the case noted that senior counsels appearing for the petitioner have not contended that the order which is passed is without jurisdiction, or passed in violation of the principles of natural justice or is an abuse to the process of law.