Chennai: The Madras High Court on Monday dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by Tamil Nadu Minister for Rural Development I. Periyasamy and his family members, challenging the enforcement action initiated against them by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) in a money laundering case.

A First Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan declined to entertain the petitions after the ED pointed out that the petitioners had bypassed the statutory remedy available under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.

The Bench accepted the submission of ED Special Public Prosecutor P. Sidharthan that the petitioners ought to have first approached the adjudicating authority under the Act before invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

The petitions had been filed by Minister Periyasamy, his son I.P. Senthilkumar, and his daughter P. Indira. They sought to quash the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) registered against them under the PMLA, along with all consequential proceedings initiated by the ED.

The ECIR stemmed from a Disproportionate Assets case earlier registered against the Minister by the State police and investigated by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC).

During the hearing, it was brought to the notice of the court that a special court dealing with Prevention of Corruption Act cases had earlier discharged the Minister from the predicate offence. However, that discharge was subsequently reversed by the Madras High Court in 2025, reviving the corruption case against him.

Following the High Court’s reversal, Periyasamy approached the Supreme Court, which granted him an interim stay of the proceedings arising from the High Court’s order. Citing this interim protection, the Minister and his family members argued before the High Court that the ED’s money laundering proceedings could not continue and sought the quashing of the ECIR.

The Division Bench, however, was not persuaded by the argument. It held that the existence of an interim stay granted by the Supreme Court did not automatically invalidate the ED’s actions, particularly when the petitioners had not exhausted the alternative remedy provided under the PMLA framework.

With this ruling, the High Court has effectively cleared the way for the ED proceedings to continue, subject to the outcome of the related matters pending before the Supreme Court.