Kolkata, July 13 (IANS) A single-judge bench of the Calcutta High Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea from the “rebel but majority” faction in the Trinamool Congress, led by Ritabrata Banerjee, seeking to be made a party in the case where the “original but minority” faction in the party, led by former West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and her nephew Abhishek Banerjee, has challenged the Enforcement Directorate (ED)’s move to freeze three bank accounts of the party with total deposits of Rs 440 crore.
As the petition from the “original but minority” faction came up for hearing before the single-judge bench of Justice Krishna Rao, the counsel for the Ritabrata-led “rebel but majority” faction also moved a plea seeking to be impleaded as a party in the case.
However, Justice Rao’s bench refused to entertain the plea from the Ritabrata-led faction and observed that since it is for the Election Commission of India (ECI) to decide the claims of both factions over the party name and election symbol, and subsequently over the party funds, his bench would not get into the matter at this stage.
Debit restrictions were imposed on the three bank accounts by the bank authorities following instructions from the West Bengal Police and subsequently the ED.
Last week, the Calcutta High Court’s single-judge bench of Justice Sougata Bhattacharya granted conditional access to the Trinamool Congress faction led by Mamata Banerjee.
However, that order did not end the complications for the Trinamool Congress faction led by Mamata Banerjee since, in the meantime, and earlier this month, the ED, which is conducting a parallel investigation into the three bank accounts in connection with the money laundering angle, also decided to freeze the accounts.
Therefore, to seek relief from the continuing complications following the ED’s move, the Mamata Banerjee-led faction again approached another single-judge bench of the Calcutta High Court, headed by Justice Krishna Rao, challenging the ED’s action in the matter.
During the hearing on Monday, Justice Rao questioned whether the parallel investigation by the ED had been initiated on the basis of an FIR registered by the state police in the matter.
In his arguments, the ED’s counsel, Dhiraj Trivedi, explained that in the case of a scheduled offence, the ED could initiate a suo motu investigation in the matter.
At the end of the hearing, Justice Rao’s bench reserved its order.
–IANS
src/pgh
