Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
All India Trinamool Congress & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 20 July, 2026
S/L No. 7
In The High Court at Calcutta
20.07.2026
Ct-25 (Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction)
p.das/-
Appellate Side
WPA No. 16258 of 2026
All India Trinamool Congress & Anr.
vs.
Union of India & Ors.
Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Kishore Datta, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ayan Bhattacherjee, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rudradipta Nandy
Mr. Agnish Basu
Mr. Vipul Vedant
Mr. Nizam Pasha
Mr. Musthfaq Salim
Mr. Siddharth Seem
Mr. Aditya Roy
Mr. Gourav Bose
Ms. Awastika Das
... for the petitioners.
Mr. S.V. Raju, Ld. A.S.G.I.
Mr. Dhiraj Trivedi, Ld. A.S.G.
Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Adil Rashid
Mr. Samrat Goswami
Ms. Aparna Sarkar
Ms. Swapna Jha
Ms. Supriti Sarkhel
Ms. Sneha Pramanick
... for E.D .
Mr. Dhiraj Trivedi, Ld. A.S.G.
Ms. Anamika Pandey
...for U.O.I.
2
1. The writ petition is taken up for hearing for grant of
interim order for staying all further proceedings,
actions and measures arising in connection with
ECIR/KLZO-II/20/2026 registered by the
Directorate of Enforcement (hereinafter referred to
as "ED") under the provisions of the Prevention of
Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred
to as "PMLA, 2002") during the pendency of the
instant writ petition and staying the operation of
Freezing Order dated 7th July, 2026, issued by the
respondent no.4 under Section 17(1-A) of the
PMLA, 2002 till the disposal of the writ petition.
2. One Shri Biswanath Das, MLA, West Bengal
Legislative Assembly, lodged a written complaint to
the Cyber Crime Police Station, Bidhannagar Police
Commissionerate on 18th June, 2026, on the
allegation that certain funds allegedly arising out of
illegal activities including misuse of influence,
dishonest financial dealings and suspected
unlawful collection of money may have been routed
and deposited into three bank accounts lying in the
HDFC Bank, Central Plaza Branch, Kolkata. On the
basis of the said complaint, Cyber Crime Station
registered FIR No. 94 of 2026 dated 18th June,
2026 under Sections 111(4)/111(6)/316(2)/
3
318(4)/61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS),
2023, read with Sections 66C and 66D of the
Information Technology Act, 2000.
3. On getting information about the FIR No. 94 of
2026, the Enforcement Directorate initiated ECIR
No. ECIR/KLZO-II/20/2026 dated 23rd June, 2026,
as per Section 318(4) and Section 6(2) of the BNS,
2023, falls under paragraph 1 of Part A of the
PMLA, 2002 and started investigation. During
investigation searches were conducted in different
locations and after conducting the searches under
Section 17 of the Act of 2002, an Order for Freezing
under Section 17(1-A) of the Act of 2002, was
issued on 7th July, 2026 for freezing six bank
accounts out of which four bank accounts were of
the HDFC Bank and two bank accounts were of
ICICI bank. Out of four bank accounts of the HDFC
Bank, three accounts are the same involved in FIR
No. 94 of 2026.
4. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Learned Senior
Advocate representing the petitioners submits that
the complaint is made by one of the MLA and
during this election, the said MLA along with all the
MLAs who have contested the election under the
banner of All India Trinamool Congress (hereinafter
referred to as “AITC”) have taken the benefit of
4
money of the said accounts. He submits that the
complaint was made on 18th June, 2026 and on the
very same day, the police initiated an FIR without
any enquiry as the said complaint relates to
financial dealing and depositing in the accounts in
question.
5. Mr. Singhvi submits that the impugned freezing
action has been undertaken by the Enforcement
Directorate in a mechanical and arbitrary manner,
without identification or segregation of any specific
proceeds of crime. He submits that the act of the
Enforcement Directorate by freezing the entire
amount is in complete disregard of the
constitutional and statutory safeguards as provided
under law.
6. Mr. Singhvi submits that immediately change in
political dispensation in the State of West Bengal,
witnessed a series of investigation and coercive
actions directed against leaders, office bearers,
elected representatives, functionaries and
associates persons of the petitioner no. 1. He
submits that several complaints culminated in
criminal investigation being initiated by different
investigating agencies.
7. Mr. Singhvi submits that after immediate
5
registering of cybercrime on 18th June, 2026, the
investigating agencies freezed three operational
bank accounts maintained by the petitioner no. 1
with the HDFC Bank, Central Plaza Branch,
Kolkata. He submits that being aggrieved with the
said freezing of the operational bank accounts, the
petitioners have approached this Court by way of
the writ petition being WPA No. 14081 of 2026. He
submits that the Coordinate Bench of this Court
after taking into consideration of the report
submitted by the investigating agency and the bank
has appointed a former Judge of this Court as
Special Officer to facilitate the operation of the
three bank accounts for incurring day-to-day/
monthly expenditure to run the political party.
8. Mr. Singhvi has referred upon the order passed by
the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 9th July,
2026 and submits that the Hon’ble Court is of the
prima facie view that the complaint dated 18th
June, 2026, appears to be omnibus without pin
pointing particular incidents or transactions based
on which three bank accounts were illegally
freezed. He further submits that the Hon’ble Court
has also observed that the complaint was lodged on
18th June, 2026 based on which the FIR was lodged
on 18th June, 2026 and hurriedly on the next day
6
i.e. 19th June, 2026, three accounts were debit-
frozen.
9. Mr. Singhvi further referred the said order and
submits that the Hon’ble Court also unable to find
particular materials which could have been the
basis of taking such steps for freezing the accounts
of the petitioners. He submits that as per Section
17(1) of the PMLA, 2002, the concerned authority
has to record the reason to believe with regard to
such offences but in the present case, there is no
reason to believe that the petitioners have
committed any offence which has resulted in
freezing of the account of the petitioners.
10. Mr. Singhvi submits that the Coordinate Bench of
this Court has passed an order by appointing an
Special Officer to facilitate the operation of the
three bank accounts by the petitioners on 9th July,
2026, and the order of freezing under Section 17(1-
A) of PMLA, 2002, is passed on 7th July, 2026 but
the State has failed to bring the same to the notice
of the Hon’ble Court.
11. Mr. Singhvi submits that there is no predicate case
has been made out against the petitioners simply
states that the police has initiated the case for the
offence under Sections 318(4)/61(2) of the BNS,
7
2023, the Enforcement Directorate has initiated the
proceeding under Section 17(1) of the PMLA, 2002
and freezed the account of the petitioner no. 1
under Section 17(1-A) of the PMLA, 2002.
12. Mr. Singhvi has relied upon the judgment in the
case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhury & Ors. vs.
Union of India & Ors. reported in (2023) 12 SCC
1 and submits that possession of unaccounted
property acquired by legal means may be
actionable for tax violation and yet, will not be
regarded as proceeds of crime unless the tax
legislation concerned prescribes such violation as
an offence and such offence is included in the
schedule to PMLA, 2002.
13. Per contra, Mr. S.V. Raju, Learned ASGI at the very
outset raised the point of maintainability of the writ
petition. He has draw the attention of this Court to
the cause title of the writ petition wherein the
petitioner no. 1 is the AITC and one Subhasish
Chakraborty has affirmed affidavit on behalf of the
petitioners without any authorization of the AITC.
He referred the authorization and submits that one
of the members of National Working Committee has
given the authorization and not by the petitioner
no. 1. Thus, the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed.
8
14. Learned ASGI raised another question with regard
to the maintainability of the writ petition being the
alternative remedy available to the petitioners. He
submits that after initiation of proceeding under
Section 17 of the PMLA, 2002, a report is to be
submitted before the Adjudicating Authority and if
the Adjudicating Authority has reason to believe
that any person has committed an offence under
Section 3 or is in possession of proceeds of crime, a
notice will be served to such person calling upon
him to indicate the source of his income, earning or
assets out of which or by means by which he has
acquired the property and the Adjudicating
Authority after considering the reply to the notice
and after hearing of the agreed person and the
Director or any other authorized officer shall decide
the same whether any property is involved in
money laundering.
15. Learned ASGI submits that if the agreed person or
the Enforcement Directorate are aggrieved with the
said order by the Adjudicating Authority can prefer
an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under
Section 26 of the PMLA, 2002. He further submits
that being aggrieved with the order of the Appellate
Tribunal, an appeal will lie to this Court under
Section 42 of the PMLA, 2002. By referring the said
9
provision, he submits that the writ petition is not
maintainable.
16. Learned ASGI submits that the petitioners have
relied upon the interim order passed by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 9th July,
2026, but the interim order cannot be treated as
precedent. He further submits that the petitioners
have relied upon the order passed by the
Coordinate Bench dated 9th July, 2026, wherein
the Hon’ble Judge has taken into consideration of
Section 106(1) of the BNS, 2023, wherein it is
recorded that the said Section does not authorize
Investigating Agency to debit freeze the bank
account. He further submits that the said
observation of the Hon’ble Court is contrary to the
judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Tapas D.
Neogy reported in (1999) 7 SCC 685. He further
submits that as the Hon’ble Court has not
considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Tapas D. Neogy (supra) and
has come to the finding that under Section 106(1)
of the BNS, 2023, does not authorize the
Investigating Agency to debit freeze account is perin
curiam.
17. Learned ASGI submits that the Enforcement
10
Directorate has freezed only six accounts but there
are other several accounts are in the name of the
petitioner no. 1 which have not been freezed. He
further submits that it is not the case of the
petitioners that these are the only three accounts of
the petitioners and there are no other accounts.
18. Mr. ASGI submits that there are other 36 accounts
in which an amount of Rs. 164 crores are lying in
the name of the petitioner no. 1.
19. Mr. ASGI submits that as per Section 17(1C) of
PMLA, 2002, mere information is sufficient to
search and seizure. Proceeds of crime can be
ascertained after enquiry and examination of
witness by the competent authority. He submits
that PMLA, 2002, is a special sub-content law and
Section 17 is a provision which specifically dealing
with the matters concerning search and seizure in
connection with offence of money laundering to be
enquired into and proceed with crime dealt with
under the said Act.
20. Learned ASGI submits that for strengthening the
mechanism, including regarding prevention of
money laundering, the Parliament in its wisdom
deemed it appropriate to drop the proviso in sub-
section (1) of Section 17 of the Act of 2002, thereby
11
dispensing with the condition that no seizure shall
be conducted unless in relation to the scheduled
offence, a report has been forwarded to the
Magistrate under Section 157 of the 1973 Code or a
complaint has been filed before a Magistrate in
regard to such offence. He submits that the Act of
2002 is a special Act and is a self-contained code
regarding the subject of searches and seizures in
connection with the offence of money laundering
under the Act of 2002, coupled with the fact that
the purpose and object of the Act of 2002, is
prevention of money laundering, and the offence of
money laundering being an independent offence
concerning the process and activity connected with
the proceeds of crime, the deletion of the first
proviso has reasonable nexus with the objects
sought to be achieved by the Act of 2002 for
strengthening the mechanism of prevention of
money laundering and to secure the proceeds of
crime.
21. Heard the Learned Counsel for the respective
parties, perused the materials on record and the
judgments relied by the parties. There is no dispute
with regard to registration of case by Cyber Crime
Police Station, Bidhannagar Police
Commissionerate dated 18th June, 2026 for the
12
offence under Sections 111(4)/111(6)/316(2)/
318(4)/61(2) of the BNS, 2023, read with Sections
66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act,
2000. Sections 318(4) and 61(2) of BNS, 2023, falls
under paragraph 1 of Part-A of the PMLA, 2002 as
defined under Section 2(1)(y) of the PMLA, 2002.
Taking into consideration of the same, the
Enforcement Directorate initiated ECIR No.
ECIR/KLZO-II-20-2026 dated 23rd June, 2026.
22. As per Section 17(1) of PMLA, 2002, if the Director
or any other officer not below the rank of the
Deputy Director authorized by him, for the
purposes of this Section, on the basis of
information, in his possession, has reason to
believe that any person has committed any act
which constitutes money laundering or is in
possession of any proceeds of crime involved in
money laundering or is in possession of any
records relating to money laundering or is in
possession of any property related crime, may
authorize any officer subordinate to seize any
record or property found as a result of such search.
23. During the investigation of ECIR initiated by the
Enforcement Directorate, the bank accounts
maintained by the petitioners with the HDFC Bank
and other bank accounts were analyzed and found
13
that substantial transfer of funds to various
entities has been transferred and accordingly the
Investigating Officer has reasons to believe that the
said transaction constitutes money laundering and
accordingly on 7th July, 2026, an order of freezing
under Section 17(1-A) of PMLA, 2002, was issued
to the HDFC Bank and ICICI Bank for freezing of
Account Nos. 50200059108322, 50200063079047
and 50200063079034 of the HDFC Bank belonging
to the petitioners.
24. The petitioners have relied upon the order passed
by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPA No.
14081 of 2026 dated 9th July, 2026, wherein the
Hon’ble Judge by appointing a Special Officer
allowed the petitioners to operate the aforesaid
three bank accounts. This Court has considered
the order passed by His Lordship. The Hon’ble
Court finds that :
“23. On mere reading of such complaint,
prima facie, it appears that same is omnibus
without pinpointing particular incident/
incidents or transaction/ transactions based
on which those three bank accounts were
illegally enriched. Apprehension is also
expressed vide said complaint dated 18th
June, 2026 that if prompt action is not taken,
relevant electronic records, bank data and
financial evidence may be altered, concealed
and dissipated.
25. From the facts alluded above, it
appears that complaint was lodged on 18th
June, 2026 based on which FIR was drawn
up at 18:00 hours on 18th June, 2026 and
hurriedly on the next day, 19th June, 2026
14
those three accounts were debit-frozen.
26. This Court has made an endeavour
to find out the materials which were
available before the concerned police
authority leading to debit-freezing of those
three bank accounts.
27. However, at this stage Court is
unable to find particular materials which
could have been basis of taking such abrupt
step. Issue needs further consideration on
placing materials before this Court prior to
final adjudication of this writ petition.”
25. In order to give effect to the provisions of Section 17
of the PMLA, the Central Government, in exercise of
the powers conferred under sub-section (1), read
with clauses (a), (m), (n), (o), (pp) and (w) of sub-
section (2) of Section 73, has framed
the Prevention of Money-Laundering (Forms,
Search and Seizure or Freezing and the Manner
of Forwarding the Reasons and Material to the
Adjudicating Authority, Impounding and
Custody of Records and the Period of Retention)
Rules, 2005. The relevant extracts of these Rules
are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:
“3. Procedure relating to search. – (1) The
Director or any other officer authorized by him
may, for the purposes of the sub-section (1) of
Section 17 of the Act, further authorize any
officer subordinate to him and such
authorization shall be in the Form 1.
(2) The authority referred to in clause (c) of
sub-rule (1) of Rule 2, shall be empowered to–
(a) enter and search any building, place,
vessel, vehicle or aircraft where he has
reason to suspect that such records or
15proceeds of crime are kept;
(b) break open the lock of any door, box,
locker, safe, almirah or other receptacle for
exercising the powers conferred by clause
(a) where the keys thereof are not
available;
(c) seize any record or property found as a
result of such search; (d) place marks of
identification on such record or make or
cause to be made extracts or copies
therefrom;
(e) make a note or an inventory of such record
or property;
(f) examine on oath any person, who is found
to be in possession or control of any record
or property, in respect of all matters
relevant for the purposes of any
investigation under this Act:
(3) Before making a search, the authority,
shall–
(a) where a building or place is to be
searched, call upon two or more
respectable persons of that locality in
which the building or place to be
searched is situated; and
(b) where a vessel, vehicle or aircraft is to be
searched, call upon any two or more
respectable persons, to attend and
witness the search and may issue an
order in writing to them or any of them so
to do.
(4) Any person in charge of, or, in any
building, place, vessel, vehicle or aircraft shall,
on production of the authorization, allow the
authority free ingress thereto and afford all
reasonable facilities for search therein.
(5) If ingress into such building or place
cannot be obtained, it shall be lawful for the
authority executing the authorization, with such
assistance of police officers or of such other
officers as specified in Section 54 of the Act, as
16may be required, to enter such building or place
and search therein and in order to effect an
entrance into such building or place, to break
open any lock of any door or window of any
building or place, whether that of the person to
be searched or of any other person, if after
production of authorization and demand of
admittance duly made, he cannot otherwise
obtain admittance:
Provided that, if any such building or place
is an apartment in actual occupancy of a
woman, who according to custom does not
appear in public, the authority shall before
entering such apartment, give notice to such
woman that she is at liberty to withdraw and
shall afford her every reasonable facility for
withdrawing and may then break open the
apartment and enter it.
(6) If ingress into any vessel, vehicle or
aircraft authorized to be searched cannot be
obtained because such vessel, vehicle or
aircraft is moving or for any other reason, it
shall be lawful for the authority executing the
authorization, with such assistance as may be
required of police officers and such officers, as
specified in Section 54 of the Act, to stop any
such vessel or vehicle or in the case of an
aircraft, compel it to stop or land, and search
any part of the vessel, vehicle or aircraft, and in
order to effect an entrance into such vessel,
vehicle or aircraft to break open any door or
window of any such vessel, vehicle or aircraft,
whether that of the person to be searched or of
any other person, if after production of the
authorization and demand of admittance duly
made, he cannot otherwise obtain admittance:
Provided that if any such vessel, vehicle or
aircraft is occupied by a woman, who according
to custom does not appear in public, the
authority shall, before entering such vessel,
vehicle or aircraft, give notice to such woman
that she is at liberty to withdraw and shall
afford her every reasonable facility for
withdrawing and may then break open the door
of any vessel, vehicle or aircraft and enter it.
(7) The authority may require any person
who, is the owner, or has the immediate
possession, or control, of any box, locker, safe,
17almirah or any other receptacle situated in such
building, place, vessel, vehicle or aircraft, to
open the same and allow access to inspect or
examine its contents, and, where the keys
thereof are not available or where such person
fails to comply with any such requirement, may
break open the lock of such box, locker, safe,
almirah or other receptacle which the authority
may deem necessary for carrying out all or any
of the purposes specified by the Director in this
behalf.
(8) The occupant of the building, place,
vessel, vehicle or aircraft searched, including
the person in charge of such vessel, vehicle or
aircraft, or some person on his behalf, shall be
permitted to attend during the search.
4. Procedure relating to seizure or
freezing. – (1) The officer or the authority, as
the case may be, freeze or seize any record or
property found as a result of search of any
building, place, vessel or vehicle or aircraft:
Provided that where it is not practicable to
seize any record or property, the authority may
serve an order on the owner or the person who
is in immediate possession or control of any
such record of property that he shall not
remove, part with or otherwise deal with it
except with the previous permission of the
authority, who may take such steps as may be
necessary for ensuring such compliance.
(1-A) Where it is not practicable to seize any record
or property, the officer or the authority, as the
case may be, may pass an order to freeze such
property whereupon the property shall not be
transferred or otherwise dealt with, except with
the prior permission of the officer or the
authority making such order, and a copy of
such order shall be served on the person
concerned.
(2) The authority shall prepare a seizure memo
(inventory of items) in Form II appended to
these rules which shall be delivered to the
occupant of the building, place, vessel, vehicle
or aircraft searched including the person in
charge of such vessel, vehicle or aircraft, or
some person on his behalf and the authority
shall also forward a copy of the inventory so
18prepared to the Director and the Adjudicating
Authority.
(3) The authority shall place or cause to be placed
the records of properties including bullion,
jewellery and other valuable articles and things
seized during the search in a package which
shall contain the details of the bullion, jewellery
and other valuable article and things placed
therein, such packages shall bear an
identification mark and the seal of the
authority, and the occupant of such building,
place, vehicle or aircraft, including the person in
charge of such vessel, vehicle or aircraft
searched or any other person on his behalf
shall also be permitted to place his seal on
packages.
(4) A copy of the list prepared in accordance with
sub-rule (3) shall be delivered to the occupant of
the building, place, vehicle or aircraft, including
the person in charge of such vessel, vehicle or
aircraft searched or any other person on his
behalf and the authority shall also forward a
copy thereof to the Director and the
Adjudicating Authority.”
26. Under sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the PMLA,
where the ‘Director or any other officer not below the
rank of Deputy Director authorised by him for the
purposes of this section’, on the basis of information
in their possession and upon recording in writing
the reasons to believe, forms an opinion that a
person has (i) committed the offence of money
laundering, or (ii) is in possession of the proceeds
of crime, or (iii) is holding records relating to money
laundering, or (iv) owns property connected with
the crime, the said officer is empowered to
authorise ‘any officer subordinate to him’ to
19
undertake the measures specified under clauses (a)
to (f) of the subsection. The procedural framework
for conducting such searches is laid down in Rule 3
of the PMLA (Search and Seizure or Freezing) Rules,
2005, which prescribes not only the detailed
procedure to be followed but also the specific Form
in which authorization must be issued, and further
mandates the manner in which the search is to be
carried out.
27. Sub-section (1A) of Section 17, which is the
relevant provision for the present case,
contemplates circumstances where immediate
seizure of property is impracticable. In such cases,
the authorised officer may issue an order freezing
the property or records, prohibiting their transfer or
dealing with the same without prior permission of
the officer issuing such order. The proviso to this
Sub-section provides that if at any stage before
confiscation it becomes practical to seize such
frozen property, the authorised officer may proceed
with seizure. The provision also mandates that a
copy of the freezing order be served upon the
affected person. Rule 4 of the PMLA (Search and
Seizure or Freezing) Rules, 2005, prescribes a
comprehensive procedure for seizure and freezing,
including the preparation of a seizure or freezing
20
memo in the Form appended thereto.
28. The petitioners’ case is that no predicate offenses
are made out against the petitioners but have debit
freezed the accounts of the petitioners. The charge
of money laundering cannot exist without the
illegal activity that generated the funds. From the
order of freezing, the allegation in the FIR
corroborates the transfer of funds amounting to Rs.
133.84 Crores from one of the account of the HDFC
to one M/s Carewell Aviation India Private Limited
which appears to have been incorporated for the
purpose of diversion of funds from AITC accounts.
In the freezing order, it is also mentioned that other
similar transactions from the accounts of the HDFC
bank have been routed for the purpose of siphoning
off and using them for personal purposes by the
persons authorizing control over the accounts
unrelated to the mandated purpose.
29. The investigating agencies have not produced
particular materials before the Coordinate Bench
on the basis of which such steps were taken by the
Cyber Crime Police and the Hon’ble Court has also
taken into consideration of Section 106 of the BNS.
In the present case from the order of freezing, it
reveals that the Investigating Officer has analyzed
the accounts and found substantial transfer of
21
funds to various entities.
30. At the stage of grant of interim order, it is not
possible for the Court to adjudge whether the
transfer is legal or otherwise. The petitioners will
get an opportunity to place its all grievances before
the Adjudicating Authority once the Adjudicating
Authority will issue notice to the petitioners for its
defense with regard to the alleged transfer of funds
or can be decided by this Court only after exchange
of affidavit.
31. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition
for quashing of the proceeding initiated by the
Enforcement Directorate being ECIR/KLZO-
II/20/2026. The same is to be decided only after
giving an opportunity to the respondents to file
their response by way of an affidavit.
32. This Court also finds that the ED has issued an
order of freezing the account on 7th July, 2026 but
the said fact was not brought to the notice of the
Coordinate Bench on 9th July, 2026, either by the
State or by the petitioners as the ED was not the
party to the said proceeding when the order was
passed.
33. Other than three accounts debit frezeed by the ED,
there are 36 other accounts in the name of the
22
petitioner no.1 and in the said accounts altogether
an amount of Rs. 1,64,14,91,332.12 are lying in
the said accounts.
34. Learned ASGI has raised the point that the order
passed by the Hon’ble Court on 9th July, 2026, is
per incuriam as the Hon’ble Court has not
considered the judgment passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Tapas D. Neogy
(supra). In the case of Headstar Global Pvt.
Limited vs. State of Kerala & Ors. reported in
2025 SCC OnLine Ker 3546, the Kerala High
Court while considering the issue whether the
Investigating Officer can issue a prohibitory order
in respect of the bank account by exercising the
power under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, considered the case of Tapas D.
Neogy (supra), the case of Teesta Atul Setalvad
Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2018) 2 SCC
372, the case of M.T. Enrica Lexie Vs. Doramma
reported in (2012) 6 SCC 760 and the case of
Shento Varghese Vs. Julfikar Husen reported in
(2024) 7 SCC 23. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court
also considered Sections 106 and 107 of the BNSS
and held that:
“13. Another aspect of importance is
that, while Section 106 speaks of seizure,
Section 107 deals with attachment, forfeiture
and restoration. Seizure under Section 106
can be carried out by a police officer and
23an ex post facto report submitted to the
Magistrate. On the other hand, attachment
under Section 107 can be effected only upon
the orders of the Magistrate. The logic behind
this distinction being that the purpose of
seizure is more to secure the evidence during
an investigation, whereas attachment is
intended to secure the proceeds of crime by
preventing its disposal and thus ensuring its
availability for legal procedure such as
forfeiture and distribution to the victim/s.”
The order of the Learned Single Judge was
challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and
the SLP was dismissed. In view of the above, it
cannot be said that the order passed by the
Coordinate Bench is per incuriam.
35. The writ petitioner no. 1, All India Trinamool
Congress, has filed the instant writ petition
through its authorized representative, namely, Mr.
Subhasish Chakraborty. In the writ petition, the
representative of the writ petitioner no.1 has
disclosed authorization. The said authorization is
signed by one Derek O’Brien, Member, National
Working Committee, All India Trinamool Congress.
Article XII(c) of the petitioner no. 1, reads as
follows:
“Article XII
(c) The National Working Committee shall be
the highest executive authority of the All
India Trinamool Congress and shall have
the power to carry out the policies and
programmers of the Trinamool Congress as
approved by the AITC Committee and shall
be responsible to the AITC Committee. It
shall be the final authority in all matters
24regarding interpretation and application of
the provisions of this Constitution.”
Considering the above, this Court finds that
Mr. Subhasish Chakraborty is being duly
authorized by the National Working Committee of
the petitioner no.1, thus the writ petition is
maintainable.
36. As regard to the alternative remedy, the petitioners
have filed the present writ petition challenging the
very initiation of ECIR proceeding by the ED. It is
the specific case of the petitioners that the alleged
transactions were neither sudden nor emergent in
nature so as to necessitate invocation of the
extraordinary powers contemplated under Section
17 of the PMLA, 2002 at the stage when the legality
of the freezing of the same accounts is pending
consideration. It is settled law that there is no
absolute bar in filing writ application, if any,
alternative remedy is available. The petitioners have
raised the issue of arbitrariness of the respondent
authorities that the proceeding has been initiated
without any justification. The same is to be decided
only after exchange of affidavit by the parties.
37. The ED after analyzing the bank accounts of the
petitioner no.1 finds that substantial transfers of
funds to various entities, most prominent out of
25
them is one Carewell group was transferred from
the said accounts. The ED has not debit freeze the
other 36 accounts of the petitioner no. 1 in which
an amount of Rs. 164 crores are lying.
38. This Court did not find any prima facie case and
balance of convenience and inconvenience in favour
of the petitioners. In view of the above, interim
order as prayed for by the petitioners, is refused.
39. The respondents are directed to file affidavit-in-
opposition within three weeks, reply, if any, within
two weeks thereafter. List the matter on 26th
August, 2026, under the heading “Adjourned
Motion”.
40. Parties shall be entitled to act on the basis of a
server copy of the order placed on the official
website of the Court.
41. Urgent Xerox certified photocopies of this order, if
applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance
of all the requisite formalities.
(Krishna Rao, J.)
