# Namrata Mark. Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi & Ors v. U.O.I. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 4 ILRA 100
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-03-18
- **Case number:** Misc. Single No. 7362 of 2021
- **Bench:** Alok Singh, Saurabh Lavania
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/namrata-mark-pvt-ltd-new-delhi-ors-v-u-o-i-ors-47024
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 5(1) - The
High Court has wide jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution does not mean that it
can disregard the substantive provisions of a
statute and pass orders which can be settled
only through a mechanism prescribed by the
Statute. (Para 34)

In the instant case, where the provisional
attachment order No. 02 of 2021 dated
09.03.2021 is under challenge, no ground has
been taken to suffice the invocation of remedy
available under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. (Para 24)

The order of provisional attachment is akin to
"show-cause notice". (Para 26)

Writ Petition Rejected. (E-8)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

100 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
primarily she would like to be with her
mother.

(vii) Relief :-

45. Considering all these aspects, this
Court does not find any merit and
substance in this petition, which is hereby
disposed off with visitation rights to the
father of the detenue in following manner :-

(i) Mr. Amit Tandon can visit the
detenue on any day with prior notice to her
mother. He can make telephonic call for
short duration every day to converse with
the detenue.

(ii) Mother of the detenue would
not object on visiting the child or having
conversation over telephone or Skype as
the case may be.

(iii) Twice in a week the father
can speak to the child over Skype for 1⁄2
hour duration each day and during winter
and summer vacation the father can take
the child to be with him and her mother for
50 % of the vacations, but primarily the
detenue would live with her mother.

(iv) The father has stated that he
is an entrepreneur and, therefore, he should
contribute Rs.10,000/- per month more for
the maintenance and study of the detenue
for the time being in addition to what he is
already contributing.
----------
(2021)04ILR A100
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.03.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Misc. Single No. 7362 of 2021

Namrata Mark. Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Karunanidhi Yadav, Krishna Kant

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.

(A) Practice & Procedure - Maintainability
of Writ Petition- Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 5(1) - The
High Court has wide jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution does not mean that it
can disregard the substantive provisions of a
statute and pass orders which can be settled
only through a mechanism prescribed by the
Statute. (Para 34)

In the instant case, where the provisional
attachment order No. 02 of 2021 dated
09.03.2021 is under challenge, no ground has
been taken to suffice the invocation of remedy
available under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. (Para 24)

The order of provisional attachment is akin to
"show-cause notice". (Para 26)

Writ Petition Rejected. (E-8)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Special Director Vs Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse
(2004) 3 SCC 440: 2004 SCC (Cri) 826

2. U.O.I. Vs Kunisetty Satyanarayana (2006) 12
SCC 28: (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 304

3. St.of Orissa & ors. Vs MESCO Steels Ltd. &
anr. (2013) 4 SCC 340

4. U.O.I. & ors. Vs Coastal Container Transporters
Association & ors. (2019) 20 SCC 446

5. Commission of Central Excise Vs Krishna Wax
Pvt.Ltd. (2020) 12 SCC 572
4 All. Namrata Mark. Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
101
6. U.O.I. Vs Guwahati Carbon Ltd. (2012) 11
SCC 651.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania, J.)

1. By means of the present writ
petition, a challenge has been made to the
provisional attachment order no. 2 of 2021
dated 09.03.2021 (annexed as annexure no.
1 to the writ petition) passed by respondent
no. 4 in exercise of power under subSection 1 of Section 5 of the Prevention of
Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short
'Act'). The petitioner has also sought
consequential relief which is to the effect
that respondents may be directed not to
give effect to the provisional attachment
order no. 2 of 2021 dated 09.03.2021. The
reliefs as sought in the writ petition on
reproduction, reads as under:-

"a) issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of CERTIORARI
quashing
the
impugned
provisional
attachment order
no. 02/2021 dated
09.03.2021 (Annexure No. 1) passed by
respondent no. 4 with respect to the four
sugar mills of the petitioner, and all other
consequential proceeding arising thereof in
respect of the petitioner;

b) issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus commanding
the respondents not to give effect to the
provisional attachment order no. 02/2021
dated 09.03.2021 passed by respondent no.
4 and not to unnecessary harass the
petitioner."

2. For the purpose of admission and
interim relief sought in the writ petition, Sri
Satya Prakash Singh, Learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Karunanidhi
Yadav,
Advocate
submitted
that
the
impugned provisional attachment order
has been passed in violation of the
provisions of Section 5 of the Act. The
procedure, as required has not been
followed prior to passing of the impugned
order. Even no opportunity was provided
by the concerned authority before passing
the impugned order.

3. It is further submitted that the
entire controversy is related with the disinvestment policy of sugar mills in the
State of U.P., which were sold to different
companies through auction. Elaborating his
arguments, he submitted that, a Public
Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 5283 (MB)
2021 (Sacchidanand Gupta vs. State of U.P.
and Ors.) was filed before this Court
challenging the auction of sugar mills,
which was dismissed by this Court vide
judgment and order dated 20.08.2016, and
the same was challenged before Hon'ble
Apex Court in SLP No. 26351 of 2016. In
SLP, an order dated 16.09.2016 was
passed. As per interim order dated
16.09.2016,
the
respondents
therein
(including the petitioner) are free to use the
sugar mills purchased by them as sugar
mills and make them functional and if the
sugar mills have gone out of production,
the same cannot be transferred or otherwise
alienated or encumbered without the
permission of Hon'ble Apex Court. In this
way, there is no question of alienation of
the property and creation of third party
right, as such, the impugned provisional
attachment order is liable to be interfered
by this Court in the writ jurisdiction.

4. He further stated that before
passing the provisional attachment order
under Section 5 of the Act, the concerned
authority is required to record the reasons
to believe on the basis of material in his
102 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
possession that if such proceeds of crime
are concealed, transferred or dealt with in
any manner then it would frustrate the
proceedings relating to confiscation of such
proceeds of crime and in the instant case,
there is already an interim order of Hon'ble
Apex Court and as such, no third party
right can be created in terms of the same as
such also the impugned order is not
sustainable.

5. He further submitted that the
proceedings have been initiated on account
of political vendetta and to settle the
political
scores.
On
this
aspect,
he
submitted that Mohd. Iqbal, father of
Mohd. Wazid and Mohd. Javed, who is the
director of the Company, had been frontline
leader of Bahujan Samaj Party and taking
into account the same, an FIR dated
07.11.2017 was lodged at Police Station-
Gomti Nagar, Lucknow registered as case
crime no. 1409 of 2017, under Sections
420, 468, 471, 477A IPC & 629A of the
Companies Act, 1956. Aggrieved by the
FIR dated 07.11.2017, Mohd. Wazid and
Mohd. Javed approached this Court by
means of Writ Petition No. 36872 (MB) of
2018 (Suman Sharma and three ors. vs.
State of U.P.), which was disposed of vide
judgment and order dated 18.12.2018,
wherein it was provided that the petitioners
shall not be arrested till submission of
police report. In another criminal case,
Mohd. Wazid and Mohd. Javed were
implicated and being aggrieved, they filed a
Writ Petition No. 29757 (MB) of 2017
(Mohd. Wajid and Ors vs. State of U.P. and
Ors.) and this Court interfered in the matter
and
passed
an
interim
order
dated
03.12.2019, staying the operation of order
dated 04.04.2019, whereby a direction was
issued to transfer the investigation of case
crime no. 1409 of 2017, under Sections
420, 468, 471, 477A IPC and 629A of the
Companies Act, 1956 lodged at P.S.-Gomti
Nagar, District Lucknow to CBI. The case
crime no. 1409 of 2017 also relates to
seven of the closed sugar mills out of 21
auctioned sugar mills.

6. He further stated that even
Competition Commission of India in the
year 2013 took cognizance and a case no.
01 of 2013 was registered against the
petitioner and other companies. This case
was
based
upon
findings
in
the
performance
Audit
Report
of
the
Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of
India. The said matter was duly contested
by the petitioners and other and after
recording the findings in favour of the
petitioner and others, the Competition
Commission
of
India
closed
the
proceedings vide order dated 04.05.2017.

7. Sri Satya Prakash Singh, learned
Senior Advocate, based on the aforesaid
submission submitted that the proceedings
carried out under the Act including the
impugned order dated 09.03.2021 has been
passed just to settle the political rivalry and
score and the same is abuse of process of
law. The prayer is to entertain the writ
petition and to pass an interim order staying
the operation and implementation of
impugned provisional attachment order no.
02 of 2021 dated 09.03.2021

8. Opposing the prayer of learned
Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the
petitioner,
Sri
S.B.
Pandey,
Assistant
Solicitor General of India assisted by Sri Shiv
P. Shukla submitted that in view of the
opportunity to the petitioner to plead its case
before the statutory forum provided under
Section 8 of the Act, the present writ petition
challenging the provisional attachment order
no. 02 of 2021 dated 09.03.2021 passed in
exercise of power as envisaged under Section
4 All. Namrata Mark. Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
103
5 of the Act, is not maintainable. This remedy
is statutory remedy. He further stated that
against the order of Adjudicating Authority
under Section 8 of the Act, there is a
provision of appeal under Section 26 before
Appellate Tribunal and thereafter any person
aggrieved by any decision or order of
Appellate Tribunal can file an appeal under
Section 42 of the Act before the concerned
High Court. He submitted that in view of the
statutory remedies available to the petitioner,
this Court may not exercise its jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The relevant provisions of the Act [Section(s)
8, 26 & 42], on reproduction reads as under:-

"8 Adjudication. -

(1) On receipt of a complaint under
sub-section (5) of section 5, or applications
made under sub-section (4) of section 17 or
under sub-section (10) of section 18, if the
Adjudicating Authority has reason to believe
that any person has committed an 13 [offence
under section 3 or is in possession of
proceeds of crime], he may serve a notice of
not less than thirty days on such person
calling upon him to indicate the sources of
his income, earning or assets, out of which or
by means of which he has acquired the
property attached under sub-section (1) of
section 5, or, seized under section 17 or
section 18, the evidence on which he relies
and
other
relevant
information
and
particulars, and to show cause why all or any
of such properties should not be declared to
be the properties involved in moneylaundering and confiscated by the Central
Government: Provided that where a notice
under this sub-section specifies any property
as being held by a person on behalf of any
other person, a copy of such notice shall also
be served upon such other person: Provided
further that where such property is held jointly
by more than one person, such notice shall
be served to all persons holding such property.

(2) The Adjudicating Authority
shall, after-

(a) considering the reply, if any, to
the notice issued under sub- section (1);

(b) hearing the aggrieved person
and the Director or any other officer
authorised by him in this behalf, and

(c) taking into account all relevant
materials placed on record before him, by an
order, record a finding whether all or any of
the properties referred to in the notice issued
under sub-section (1) are involved in moneylaundering: Provided that if the property is
claimed by a person, other than a person to
whom the notice had been issued, such
person shall also be given an opportunity of
being heard to prove that the property is not
involved in money-laundering.

(3)
Where
the
Adjudicating
Authority decides under sub-section (2)
that any property is involved in moneylaundering, he shall, by an order in
writing, confirm the attachment of the
property made under sub-section (1) of
section 5 or retention of property or record
seized under section 17 or section 18 and
record a finding to that effect, such
attachment or retention of the seized
property or record shall-

(a) continue during the pendency
of
the
proceedings
relating
to
any
scheduled offence before a court; and

(b) become final after the guilt of
the person is proved in the trial court and
order of such trial court becomes final.
104 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(4) Where the provisional order
of attachment made under sub-section (1)
of section 5 has been confirmed under subsection (3), the Director or any other
officer authorised by him in this behalf
shall forthwith take the possession of the
attached property.

(5) Where on conclusion of a trial
for any scheduled offence, the person
concerned is acquitted, the attachment of
the property or retention of the seized
property or record under sub-section (3)
and net income, if any, shall cease to have
effect.

(6) Where the attachment of any
property or retention of the seized property
or record becomes final under clause (b) of
sub-section (3), the Adjudicating Authority
shall, after giving an opportunity of being
heard to the person concerned, make an
order confiscating such property.

26.
Appeals
to
Appellate
Tribunal.-

(1) Save as otherwise provided in
sub-section (3), the Director or any person
aggrieved by an order made by the
Adjudicating Authority under this Act, may
prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal.

(2)
Any
banking
company,
financial
institution
or
intermediary
aggrieved by any order of the Director
made under sub-section (2) of section 13,
may prefer an appeal to the Appellate
Tribunal.

(3) Every appeal preferred under
sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be
filed within a period of forty-five days from
the date on which a copy of the order made
by the Adjudicating Authority or Director
is received and it shall be in such form and
be accompanied by such fee as may be
prescribed: Provided that the Appellate
Tribunal may after giving an opportunity of
being heard entertain an appeal after the
expiry of the said period of forty-five days
if it is satisfied that there was sufficient
cause for not filing it within that period.

(4) On receipt of an appeal under
sub-section (1), or sub-section (2), the
Appellate Tribunal may, after giving the
parties to the appeal an opportunity of
being heard, pass such orders thereon as it
thinks fit, confirming, modifying or setting
aside the order appealed against.

(5) The Appellate Tribunal shall
send a copy of every order made by it to the
parties to the appeal and to the concerned
Adjudicating Authority or the Director, as
the case may be.

(6) The appeal filed before the
Appellate Tribunal under sub-section (1) or
sub-section (2) shall be dealt with by it as
expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall
be made by it to dispose of the appeal finally
within six months from the date of filing of the
appeal.

42. Appeal to High Court.--Any
person 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-
4 All. Namrata Mark. Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
105

(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. Sri Pandey further submitted that in
the instant case, it has not been urged by
learned counsel for the petitioner that the
impugned order is without jurisdiction or
has been passed without any foundation as
such also, the petitioner is under obligation
to avail the remedies available under the
statute.

10. He further stated that prior to
passing of the order of provisional
attachment, the Act does not provide for
giving an opportunity of hearing. In this
way, the argument of learned counsel for
the petitioner, on this aspect, is fallacious.

11. It is further submitted that before
the High Court of Delhi, a writ petition
bearing W.P. (C) No. 5511 of 2019 : (Wave
Hospitality Private Limited vs. Union of
India) was filed challenging the provisional
attachment order, as also challenging
Section(s) 5(1), 5(5), 8(3), 8(5) and 8(6) of
the Prevention of Money Laundering Act
was filed. In the said writ petition, a
preliminary objection with regard to
maintainability of the writ petition was
raised and after considering the factual as
also the legal aspect of the case, the High
Court of Delhi dismissed the petition vide
order dated 30.05.2019 with liberty to the
petitioner to show cause the impugned
order, which was order of provisional
attachment under the Act.

12. Sri Pandey further submitted that
proceedings under Prevention of Money
Laundering Act are different from the
proceedings carried out by the Competition
Commission of India and the decision of
Competition
Commission
of
India
including the findings therein would not
affect the proceedings under the Act. The
Act was enacted by the Parliament to
prevent Money Laundering and to provide
confiscation
of
property
derived
or
involved in Money Laundering and for
matters connected therewith or incidental
thereto. Thus, the submission of learned
counsel for the petitioner based on the
findings of the Competition Commission of
India has no force.

13. He also stated that the impugned
order of attachment is not in violation of
interim order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, as
the same imposes certain restrictions on the
purchasers of sugar mills.

14. Lastly, he submitted that all the
pleas which have been raised by the
petitioner before this Court can be raised by
the
petitioner
before
Adjudicating
Authority under Section 8 of the Act and
the Adjudicating Authority, as appears
from Section 8(2), is under obligation to
consider the same.

15.

We
have
considered
the
submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties.

16. Before we proceed to take up the
issue of maintainability of writ petition, we
feel it appropriate to advert, in brief the
106 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
reason behind enacting the Prevention of
Money Laundering Act, which was enacted
in the year 2002. This Act was brought in
force w.e.f 01.07.2005. The reason for
enacting this Act is to implement the
political declaration adopted by the United
Nations General Assembly held in the
month of June, 1998 in which India was a
Member. The statement of objects and
reasons recognizes that money laundering,
is a serious threat not only to financial
system of country but also to its integrity
and sovereignty. In this view, to prevent
money laundering and to provide for
confiscation of property derived from or
involved in money laundering and for the
matter connected therewith, the provision
has been made in the Act. The Money
Laundering is not only the threat, as
aforesaid, to our country, but it is also
affecting the entire world.

17. Taking note of aforesaid, we are
considering the issue of maintainability of
instant
writ
petition
challenging
the
provisional attachment order no. 2 of 2021
dated 09.03.2021

18. The intention behind the Act is to
check the money laundering, as defined
under Section 3 of the Act, the same reads
as under:-

3. Offence of money-laundering
--Whosoever directly or indirectly attempts
to
indulge
or
knowingly
assists
or
knowingly is a party or is actually involved
in any process or activity connected with
the proceeds of crime and projecting it as
untainted property shall be guilty of offence
of money-laundering.

19. Punishment for money laundering
is provided under Section 4 of the Act.
Section 5 deals with the provisional
attachment, which is limited to 180 days
only. Sections 6 to 11 deal with the
constitution of Adjudicating Authority and
adjudication process.

20. It reflects from the aforesaid
sections that while adjudicating the action
of
officials
related
to
provisional
attachment, a duty is cast upon the
Adjudicating Authority to consider entire
material and Adjudicating Authority is
under statutory obligation to conduct fullfledged
enquiry
and
trial
and
only
thereafter, the provisional attachment can
be confirmed or rescinded.

21. Sections 5 to 11 are under Chapter
III of the Act, which provides for
attachment, adjudication and confiscation.

22. In order to protect the right of the
concerned person over the property in
issue, the process of adjudication after
provisional attachment order is provided
under the Act.

23. No doubt, that in certain
contingencies, inspite of existence of
alternative statutory remedy available to the
aggrieved person, the remedy available
under Article 226 of Constitution of India
can be availed by filing writ petition and
Constitutional Courts can entertain the
same. These contingencies, broadly, are (i)
where it is a case of Inherent Lack of
Jurisdiction,
(ii)
where
there
is
a
breach/violation of Principles of Natural
Justice, (iii) Where the writ petition has
been filed for enforcement of Fundamental
Rights and, (iv) where the vires of the Act
is challenged.

24. In the instant case, assailing the
provisional attachment order No. 02 of
2021 dated 09.03.2021, no ground has been
4 All. Namrata Mark. Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
107
taken that the order has been passed by an
incompetent authority or by an authority
having no jurisdiction. In this view, it is not
a case of lack of jurisdiction. Further, in
this writ petition, the vires of the Act has
not been challenged.

25. In this case, Right to Property is
involved.
Right
to
property
is
a
constitutional right, which is always subject
to restriction imposed by law. Further, the
Right to Property has not been included
under Part-III of the Constitution of India,
which deals with the Fundamental Rights.
Article 300-A is under Chapter IV of PartXII of Constitution of India and it provides
Right to Property. Thus, this is also not a
case of enforcement of Fundamental Right.
On the other hand, this is a case of right
over the property, which can efficaciously
be adjudicated by Forums provided under
the Act.

26. So far as the plea of breach of
natural justice, as raised by the counsel for
the petitioner for entertaining the writ
petition is concerned, we are of the view
that the same is unsustainable. The reason
for it, in our view, is that an order of
provisional attachment is akin to "showcause notice". This observation is based on
the following main reasons; inferred by us
from the provisions envisaged under
Sections 5 & 8 of the Act:-

(i)
The
life
of
provisional
attachment order is 180 days only and
there exists a statutory remedy to the
concerned person against the same under
Section 8 of the Act, which provides fullfledged hearing/trial and as also complete
opportunity of hearing to the aggrieved
person to present his case,

(ii) Opportunity of hearing
under Section 8 is not a "post-decisional
hearing"

(iii) After the adjudication, as per
Section 8 of the Act, the order of
provisional attachment can be confirmed or
rescinded.

(iv) In order to protect the right
over the property, to avoid the prejudice to
the concerned party on account of the
action
of
the
officials,
the
proper
opportunity of hearing is provided to the
concerned party under the Act itself.

27. It is trite law that the writ petition
at the stage of show cause notice is not
maintainable. (Vide: Special Director vs.
Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse, (2004) 3 SCC
440 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 826; Union of India
v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12
SCC 28:(2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 304; State
of Orrisa & Ors Vs. MESCO Steels Ltd.
& Another (2013) 4 SCC 340; Union of
India & Ors Vs. Coastal Container
Transporters
Association
&
Others
(2019) 20 SCC 446; Commissioner of
Central Excise Vs. Krishna Wax Private
Ltd.(2020) 12 SCC 572; Union of India v.
Guwahati Carbon Ltd., (2012) 11 SCC
651).

28. We also find from the above
quoted provisions of the Act that in
addition to remedy available under Section
8 of the Act, the party/person aggrieved by
an order made by Adjudicating Authority
can prefer an appeal under Section 26 of
the Act before the Appellate Tribunal and
thereafter any person aggrieved by any
decision or order of Appellate Tribunal can
file an appeal before the concerned High
108 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court, as provided under Section 42 of the
Act.

29. In addition to what we have
already observed hereinabove, on the plea
based on principle of natural justice, we
would like to further observe that albeit
alternative remedy is not absolute bar for
entertaining the writ petition but taking
note of multi layered remedies available in
the statute under consideration itself, it
would not be appropriate for this Court to
exercise
the
discretionary
jurisdiction
provided
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution of India on the plea of
violation of Principles of Natural Justice.
Further, the Act itself does not provide any
opportunity of hearing to the concerned
party prior to passing of order of provisions
attached under Section 5 of the Act.
Rightly so as after the order under Section
5 of the Act, the aggrieved party has multi
layered remedies under the Act.

30. So far as the plea(s) related to
recording of 'reasons to believe' while
passing the provisional attachment order
and
other
procedural
irregularities/illegalities are concerned, the
same are statutory infraction and being so
the same can be pleaded before the
Adjudicating Authority as also in the
appeal(s) provided under Sections 26 & 42
of the Act.

31. Regarding the arguments of the
learned Senior Advocate, based on the facts
related to the interim order of Hon'ble the
Apex Court, political rivalry and finding of
Competition Commission, we are of the
view that it would not be appropriate for
this Court to advert into the same and
record finding(s), as it could prejudice the
case of either of the parties before the
Adjudicating Authority and other forums
available under the Act.

32. We may usefully refer to the
exposition of the Apex Court in Titaghur
Paper Mills Co. Ltd. & Another vs. State
of Orrisa and Ors. 11(1983) 2 SCC 433,
wherein it is observed that where a right or
liability is created by a statute, which gives
a special remedy for enforcing it, the
remedy provided by that statute must only
be availed of.

In paragraph 11 of the above
report, the Court observed thus:-

"11. Under the scheme of the Act,
there is a hierarchy of authorities before
which the petitioners can get adequate
redress
against
the
wrongful
acts
complained of. The petitioners have the
right to prefer an appeal before the
Prescribed Authority under sub-section (1)
of Section 23 of the Act. If the petitioners
are dissatisfied with the decision in the
appeal, they can prefer a further appeal to
the Tribunal under sub-section (3) of
Section 23 of the Act, and then ask for a
case to be stated upon a question of law for
the opinion of the High Court under
Section 24 of the Act. The Act provides for
a complete machinery to challenge an
order of assessment, and the impugned
orders
of
assessment
can
only
be
challenged by the mode prescribed by the
Act and not by a petition under Article 226
of the Constitution. It is now well
recognised that where a right or liability is
created by a statute which gives a special
remedy for enforcing it, the remedy
provided by that statute only must be
availed of. This rule was stated with great
clarity by Willes, J. in Wolverhampton6 in
the following passage:
4 All. Air Force Naval Housing Board Air Force Station, Race Course, New Delhi Vs. U.P. Real
Estate Regulatory Authority Regional Office, G.B. Nagar & Ors.
109

"There are three classes of cases
in which a liability may be established
founded upon statute. . . . But there is a
third class, viz. where a liability not
existing at common law is created by a
statute which at the same time gives a
special and particular remedy for enforcing
it.... The remedy provided by the statute
must be followed, and it is not competent to
the party to pursue the course applicable to
cases of the second class. The form given
by the statute must be adopted and adhered
to."

The rule laid down in this
passage was approved by the House of
Lords in Neville v. London Express
Newspapers Ltd. (1919 AC 368) and has
been reaffirmed by the Privy Council in
Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago
v. Gordon Grant & Co. Ltd. (1935 AC 532)
and Secretary of State v. Mask & Co. (AIR
1940 PC 105). It has also been held to be
equally applicable to enforcement of rights,
and has been followed by this Court
throughout. The High Court was therefore
justified in dismissing the writ petitions in
limine." (emphasis supplied)"

(iii)
Impugned
order
of
provisional attachment has been passed by
competent authority and on this aspect, no
ground has been taken in writ petition.

34. In the subsequent decision in
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. & Ors. vs.
Union of India & ors. (1997) 5 SCC 536,
the Apex Court went on to observe that an
Act cannot bar and curtail remedy under
Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution. The
Court, however, added a word of caution
and expounded that the constitutional Court
would certainly take note of the legislative
intent manifested in the provisions of the
Act and would exercise its jurisdiction
consistent with the provisions of the
enactment. To put it differently, the fact
that the High Court has wide jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution, does
not mean that it can disregard the
substantive provisions of a statute and pas
orders which can be settled only through a
mechanism prescribed by the Statute.

35. For the foregoing reasons, including
that the multi-layered remedies are available
to the petitioner under the statute in which the
impugned order of provisional attachment
has been passed as also the judgments
referred hereinabove, we are not inclined to
entertain this writ petition challenging the
provisional attachment order no. 2 of 2021
dated 09.03.2021 under Section 5 of the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed
with no order as to costs.

36. However, the petitioner is at liberty
to avail the remedies available under the Act.
----------
(2021)04ILR A109
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.03.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.

Rera Appeal Defective No. 6 of 2021

Air Force Naval Housing Board Air Force
Station, Race Course, New Delhi
 ...Appellant
Versus
U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority
Regional Office, G.B. Nagar & Ors.
 ...Respondents