High Courts need not entertain every Article 226 petition against orders of PMLA adjudicating authority: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently opined that it need not entertain every writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging orders of adjudicating authorities under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). [Mohankumar K & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.].Justice PV Kunhikrishnan explained that PMLA was a complete code which provides for adjudication by the authority under Section 8, a first appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 26, and a further appeal to the High Court under Section 42.The Court said that while its discretionary powers under Article 226 are wide, allowing writ petitions in every instance of alleged illegality would overload the judiciary. This is unnecessary especially when statutory forums exist to deal with such issues."It is true that there is no limitation on exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if there is any violation of fundamental rights or if any orders are passed without jurisdiction. But each case has to be decided based on its facts. The jurisdiction of this Court may be wide, but if this Court interferes in each and every case in which there is an illegality or impropriety, this Court will be burdened with litigation. That is why the PML Act provide a separate procedure for filing an appeal and a second appeal. Unless there is an extraordinary situation, this Court need not interfere with an order passed under Section 8 of the PML Act," the Court said..It added that courts must refrain from stepping in prematurely to adjudicate on matters unless there is a glaring illegality, violation of fundamental rights or jurisdictional errors."This Court is burdened with thousands of cases. Convicts are in jail waiting for a decision in their appeal against conviction and sentence. In such circumstances, when efficacious alternative remedies are available, this Court need not interfere with the orders passed by the adjudicating authority invoking the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution unless there is an extraordinary situation," the Court observed. .The Court made the observation while considering a petition moved by the owners of a property which was provisionally attached as per Section 5(1) of the PMLA by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).The order of attachment was subsequently confirmed by the adjudicating authority under PMLA.In their writ petition before the High Court moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the owners claimed that the attached properties were purchased lawfully from persons who were later accused in a cheating case.According to them, the purchase occurred well before the commission of any alleged offence and therefore, the properties could not be termed as 'proceeds of crime' under PMLA.They submitted that the orders confirming the attachment were passed without due consideration of their detailed objections and thus moved the High Court challenging the same. .After considering all arguments, the Court stated that while the High Court does have the power to decide on matters under Article 226, it need not be invoked at every instance of alleged illegality as there was an alternative remedy prescribed by PMLA.The Court also clarified that every case must be decided on its own facts and stated that prior judicial discretion exercised in similar matters did not automatically create a binding precedent."Each case is to be decided based on the facts in that case. The Court has to exercise its discretion. Simply because, in one case, a learned Judge exercised the discretionary jurisdiction vested with him while invoking Article 226 of the Constitution, the same cannot be treated as a precedent unless a dictum is laid down to that effect," the Court added..Finding no extraordinary circumstance in this case to bypass the statutory appellate process under the PMLA, the Court dismissed the petitions as non-maintainable. However, it granted liberty to the petitioners to pursue remedies before the appellate tribunal..The petitioners were represented by advocates Babu S Nair, Smitha Babu, PA Rajesh, Pranav, KP Dhaneesh, Siddharth Karun Pisharody and Farsana Noushad.Advocate Christy Theresa Suresh appeared for Enforcement Directorate..[Read Judgment]