HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.60 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the order, dated 14-01- 2010, passed by the Adjudicating Authority, 4th respondent herein, under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’) against quite a large number of persons or establishments, including B. Ramalinga Raju and the petitioner herein. Fairly good number of properties were attached by the competent authority. One such property is a Flat in premises bearing No.8-2-309/1/C-2, Road No.14, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. After the order of attachment was passed, the matter was placed before the 3rd respondent for confirmation. After giving notice to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent passed the impugned order, confirming the attachment. As a result, the 3rd respondent required the petitioner to deliver possession of the attached property in terms of Section 8 (4) of the Act. 2. The petitioner and certain others filed W.P. No.10765 of 2010 and batch, challenging the vires of various provisions of the Act. Through a common judgment on 04-03-2011 a Division Bench of this Court has dismissed the writ petition and upheld the validity of the provisions of the Act. Challenge was also made to the individual orders of attachment, confirmation of attachment, similar to the one that is impugned in this writ petition. The Division Bench left it open to the petitioners therein, to assail the order of confirmation of attachment before the appellate authority under Section 26 of the Act. 3. The petitioner challenges the impugned order on several grounds. The respondent, on the other hand, filed a counter affidavit opposing the writ petition. 4. Heard Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajeev Avasthi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 5. In view of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in W.P. No.10765 of 2010 and batch, the necessity for this Court to deal with the various contentions in depth, is obviated. Further, this Court cannot examine the validity or otherwise of the order, dated 14-01- 2010, at this stage. The reason is that an effective alternative remedy, by way of an appeal, is provided under Section 26 of the Act to the appellate authority. The petitioner can avail the remedy of appeal. The interest of the petitioner can be protected, by staying the operation of the possession notice, dated 09-12-2010, for a reasonable time. 6. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal against the order, dated 14-01-2010. The further proceedings in pursuance of the possession notice, dated 09-12-2010, shall stand stayed for a period of three (3) weeks from today. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J March 09, 2011. Note: Issue CC in three days. B/O. KTL