Click the Play button to listen to article

The Tripura High Court refused to vacate an interim stay on ED's provisional attachment proceedings under PMLA against a suspended IAS officer, observing that the officer's grievances concerning the provisional attachment order require detailed examination at the final hearing and that the balance of convenience was in his favour. 

In doing so the court observed that provisional attachment order under challenge was required to be tested for compliance with the requirements of Section 5(5) PMLA. 

For context, Section 5(5) PMLA states that the Director (ED) or any other officer who provisionally attaches any property under Section 5 (1) shall, within 30 days from such attachment, file a complaint stating the facts of such attachment before the Adjudicating Authority.

A Division Bench of Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud and Justice Biswajit Palit observed that:

“A close reading of Section 5 of the PMLA indicates that the impugned order under challenge is required to be tested for compliance with Section 5(5)...For the reasons stated above by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-respondent, and considering the provisions of Section 5(5) of the PMLA and the grievances raised herein, which require detail examination and the balance of convenience is in favour of the writ petitioner and thus the matter needs to be decided finally on all issues. Accordingly, the interim order passed by this Court in I.A. No. 01 of 2026, dated 16.09.2026 suspending the impugned proceeding dated 31.07.2026 initiated by the respondents, shall continue to remain in force pending disposal of the writ petition. Accordingly the vacate-stay application stands dismissed and the stay is made absolute".

The Court held that the interim protection would continue until the disposal of petitioner Abhishek Chandra's writ petition challenging the ED proceedings. It thus dismissed ED's application seeking vacation of stay of proceedings. 

The ED had argued that petition was not maintainable as he had an alternative statutory remedy under the PMLA. It contended that he should first approach the Adjudicating Authority and thereafter avail of the appellate remedies under PMLA Act.

The agency also submitted that the provisional attachment order was valid only for 180 days and that the period would expire shortly.

Opposing the application, petitioner's counsel argued that the ED had failed to comply with the requirements of Section 5 of the PMLA while initiating the attachment proceedings. He further submitted that he was not named in any of the five FIRs relied upon by the ED and that there were no allegations against him in those FIRs.

The High Court noted that the ED had confined its submissions to the application seeking vacation of the interim stay without addressing the entire matter on merits.

The High Court also considered the petitioner contention that availability of alternative statutory remedy does not operate as an absolute bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Finding that the grievances raised by Chandra required detailed examination and that the balance of convenience was in his favour, the High Court declined to vacate the interim protection.

The court dismissed ED's plea. 

For the Petitioner: Mr. B. Majumder, Deputy Solicitor General of India.

For the Respondent: Mr. Navin Kumar, Mr. K. Roy, Mr. U. Sankar Singha, Mr. D. Chakraborty and Ms. Sumana Debbarma, Advocates.

Tags: