Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/2576/2025 on 11 September, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:8072
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
WPMS/2576/2025
With
WPMS/1775/2025
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
1. Mr. Siddhartha Sah & Mr. Sanjay
Gaur, Advocates for the petitioners.
2. Ms. Monika Pant, learned counsel
for the respondents.
3. Since common questions of fact and
law are involved in these petitions,
therefore, both the petitions are clubbed
together and decided by this common
judgment. However, for the sake of
brevity and convenience, facts of WPMS
No. 2576 of 2025 alone are being
considered.
4. By means of this writ petition,
petitioner has sought the following
reliefs:-
(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari to quash the provisional attachment
order number 01/2024 in ECIR / 08 / PMLA /
DNSZO / 2013 / AD(SK) / AEO(PS) / 1135 dt.
23.06.14 issued by respondent no. 1 against
the properties mortgaged with the Petitioner
(Contained in Annexure no. 2 to this writ
petition)
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari to quash the order dt. 07.11.2014
passed by Ld. Adjudicating Authority under
section 8(3) of the PMLA issued by respondent
no. 1 against the properties mortgaged with the
Petitioner (Contained in Annexure no. 3 to this
writ petition).
(iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari to quash the order dt. 16.01.25
passed by MP-PMLA-1441/CHD/2015 Misc. FPA-
PMLA-761/CHD/2014 against the properties
2025:UHC:8072
mortgaged with the Petitioner. (Contained in
Para 9 to the writ petition).
(iv) issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding/directing the
respondent no. 1 for release of the mortgaged
properties mortgaged with the Petitioner,
attached by respondent no. 1.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that a provisional attachment
order dated 23.06.2014 was passed
under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of
Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the
Adjudicating Authority, vide order dated
07.11.2014 confirmed the provisional
attachment order under Section 8 of the
aforesaid Act.
6. Petitioner challenged the order
passed by Adjudicating Authority in an
appeal under Section 26 of the aforesaid
Act, which was dismissed by Appellate
Tribunal, vide judgment dated
16.01.2025. Thus, feeling aggrieved,
petitioner has approached this Court
challenging the orders of provisional
attachment, order passed by
Adjudicating Authority and order passed
by Appellate Tribunal.
7. Ms. Monika Pant, learned counsel
appearing for respondent no. 1 -
Directorate of Enforcement, however,
raised a preliminary objection that in
view of statutory remedy of appeal
available to petitioner under Section 42
of Prevention of Money Laundering Act,
2002, this writ petition would not be
maintainable.
8. Section 42 of the Prevention of
Money Laundering Act, 2002, is
extracted below:-
"42. Appeal to High Court.--Any person
2025:UHC:8072
aggrieved by any decision or order of the
Appellate Tribunal may file an appeal to the High
Court within sixty days from the date of
communication of the decision or order of the
Appellate Tribunal to him on any question of law or
fact arising out of such order:
Provided that the High Court may, if it is satisfied
that the appellant was prevented by sufficient
cause from filing the appeal within the said period,
allow it to be filed within a further period not
exceeding sixty days.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section,
"High Court" means--
(i) the High Court within the jurisdiction of which
the aggrieved party ordinarily resides or
carries on business or personally works for
gain; and
(ii) where the Central Government is the
aggrieved party, the High Court within the
jurisdiction of which the respondent, or in a
case where there are more than one
respondent, any of the respondents, ordinarily
resides or carries on business or personally
works for gain"
9. This Court finds substance in the
objection raised by learned counsel
appearing for respondent no. 1. Since
the Prevention of Money Laundering Act,
2002 is a self-contained Act, which
provides for appeal against
decision/order of Appellate Tribunal
under Section 42 of the Act, therefore,
the writ petition would not be
maintainable.
10. Accordingly, the writ petitions are
dismissed on the ground of alternate
remedy with liberty to petitioner to
approach appropriate Forum in terms of
Section 42 of the Act.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J)
11.09.2025
Aswal
NITI RAJ SINGH Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3,
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
ASWAL
serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A585317
26FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL
Date: 2025.09.15 05:25:40 -07'00'
2025:UHC:8072
