2025:UHC:8072 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS 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 ASWAL 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, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A585317 26FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2025.09.15 05:25:40 -07'00' 2025:UHC:8072