The Karnataka High Court has refused to entertain a writ petition challenging an order confirming attachment of properties under the  PMLA despite the predicate offence having been quashed.

The Court held that since the PMLA constitutes a “complete Code” providing a hierarchy of authority and remedies, and while Article 226 petition is maintainable against attachment order however its entertainability is left to judicial discretion. 

The High Court was hearing a writ petition filed by Dr. Bhimashankar Bilgundi, former President of the Hyderabad Karnataka Education (HKE) Society, who, along with others, was accused of siphoning over Rs 81 crore from postgraduate medical students. The proceedings for the predicate offence, registered under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code, were quashed by the High Court. Despite this, Adjudicating Authority under PMLA passed an order confirming attachment of his properties by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that a petition under Article 226 read with Section 528 of BNSS is maintainable against an order of attachment, however, its entertainability remains purely a matter of judicial discretion.

“It is no doubt true that the petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the BNSS, against the order of attachment would be maintainable. But, its entertainability is entirely discretion at the hands of this Court,” the High Court said.

It added, “The Apex Court has clearly observed that the Act is a complete Code to itself and the hierarchy of the authorities under the Act needs to be followed by any accused. The attachment order that was provisionally passed now stands confirmed by an order of the Adjudicating Authority on 11-12-2025. The order passed by the Adjudicating Authority is under Section 17 of the Act. The petitioner does have an alternative statutory remedy under Section 26 of the Act, which deals with appeals to the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Act.”

The High Court referred to the Kerala High Court ruling in Mohankumar K. vs. Union of India (2025), wherein it was held that the High Court must decline to interfere with the Adjudicating Authority's order under PMLA, as Section 26 allows the accused to challenge the order before the Appellate Tribunal.

“The High Court of Kerala holds that in the teeth of the statutory remedy available under Section 26 of the Act, the Court must decline to interfere with the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The High Court of Kerala holds that every illegal order need not be entertained by this Court by invoking the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India especially, when the Act is a complete Code, containing provisions for filing an appeal,” the Court noted.

“The Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta also holds that every illegal order cannot be brought before the High Court when a comprehensive statutory mechanism for redressal exists. I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the High Court of Kerala and persuaded to accept the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta and decline to entertain the subject petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to urge all contentions that are urged before this Court before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 26 of the Act,” the Court further said.

Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the petition, directing that the Appellate Tribunal shall entertain the appeal on its merit if the same is preferred by the petitioner within 30 days.

It held, “It is needless to observe that the Appellate Tribunal would also consider the effect of obliteration of the predicate offence to arrive at a conclusion of the lis that would be brought before it by the petitioner. In the event the petitioner would prefer an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, the Tribunal shall entertain the appeal on its merit, without reference to the delay.”

Background

The case arose from a crime registered in Crime No. 19 of 2024 for offences punishable under Sections 34, 419 and 420 of the IPC. It was alleged that the petitioner and the first accused, Dr. Bhimashankar Bilgundi, in collusion with the Dean and Accountant of MRMC Medical College and a Canara Bank Manager, siphoned off Rs. 81,21,60,000 between January 2018 and March 2024 from bank accounts of 282 postgraduate medical students.

Based on this predicate offence, the ED registered an ECIR on July 18, 2024. On February 28, 2025, the Karnataka High Court granted an interim order of stay on investigation in the Crime No. 19/2024. Despite the stay, the ED issued a provisional attachment order, attaching bank accounts and properties in the names of the petitioner and his sons.

On November 20, 2025, the High Court quashed the proceedings under Crime No. 19 of 2024, and the same was informed by the petitioner to the Adjudicating Authority. Nevertheless, on December 11, 2025, the Adjudicating Authority passed an order under Section 8(3) confirming the provisional attachment. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court.