The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to provide relief to the Mamata Banerjee-led Trinamool Congress (TMC) faction on operating four bank accounts frozen in connection with a land allotment probe, saying the Calcutta high court is considering the matter. The high court heard arguments and scheduled the matter for hearing after the Puja holidays.
The high court is considering the faction’s petition for de-freezing the accounts. The faction argued it is unable to carry out its functions, particularly when a by-election is around the corner. The faction said it needs approximately ₹ 19 crore a month for daily expenses and it is willing to reduce it to ₹ 12.15 crore monthly. It also cited the October 6 by-election to two assembly seats.
Senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Shoeb Alam, appearing for the faction, told the court that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had frozen three accounts in a money laundering probe. Singhvi said, “Every day, a political party’s oxygen is in paralysis and in a democracy, a political party, the third largest in the country and the only opposition in the state of West Bengal, is being paralysed by the state police. He said the high court has appointed an administrator for three accounts in the ED case to provide for day-to-day expenditure.
“We refrain from going into the merits of the matter as the issue is being considered by the high court.
We are not inclined to interfere except for expediting the hearing of the petition pending in the high court,” said a bench of Justices MM Sundresh and PB Varale. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the state, cited serious charges and added that the accounts were frozen based on complaints that Sumit Roy, who is the personal secretary of lawmaker Abhishek Banerjee, deposited a “huge” amount of cash ( ₹ 35 crore). He said the high court is considering all these matters and can be asked to expedite the hearing. Parmeshwar cited the earlier arrangement and said the high court has allowed a special officer to ensure day-to-day expenses are met. He said sufficient funds are in three accounts which can cater to that. “The only reason for approaching the [Supreme] Court is to secure additional withdrawal from the bank, which cannot be permitted,” Parmeshwar said. The bench considered the arguments and said the high court has said it will ultimately hear both sides. “Expressing any opinion on merits will have sufficient bearing on the matter pending there.”
