New Delhi, Aug 11 (IANS) The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to interfere with the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) freezing of three bank accounts of the Trinamool Congress in connection with an alleged money laundering probe, while allowing the existing interim arrangement for the party to meet its day-to-day expenses under the supervision of a court-appointed Special Officer.

A Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Prasanna B. Varale was hearing a plea filed by the Trinamool faction led by Mamata Banerjee, challenging the Calcutta High Court's order refusing to grant interim relief against the ED's freezing of the three HDFC Bank accounts.

The apex court also disposed of a separate petition filed by rebel TMC leader Biswanath Das, who had challenged the Calcutta High Court's order, contending that he represented the "real party".

The Justice Sundresh-led Bench observed that the order of the High Court was a "balanced" arrangement as it ensured that the party's day-to-day operations were not stalled while keeping the operation of the accounts under judicial supervision.

"We will not say anything. We will dispose of both the matters and leave it to the discretion of the Special Officer appointed by the High Court. Whatever you want to say, say it in the main petition," the top court said.

The Supreme Court clarified that it was not concerned with the dispute between the rival factions of the party and was only examining the limited issue concerning the operation of the frozen bank accounts.

It left it open to the parties to raise their respective objections before the Special Officer and in the main proceedings pending before the Calcutta High Court.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the Trinamool, submitted that while the alleged proceeds of crime were around Rs 160 crore, more than Rs 400 crore was lying in the frozen bank accounts.

"Everything is frozen. We can't pay salaries. We can't pay our employees. Why are you freezing more than the proceeds of crime? They are also freezing recipient accounts. This is not fair," he submitted.

Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the ED, submitted that the party was protected insofar as the operation of the accounts for day-to-day expenses was concerned. He also highlighted that nearly Rs 120 crore was available and referred to the ongoing dispute within the party.

Senior advocate K. Parameshwar, appearing for a rebel Trinamool MLA whose complaint had led to the freezing of the accounts by the West Bengal Police, submitted that one faction of the party could not be permitted to operate the accounts.

However, the Supreme Court declined to enter into the factional dispute and observed that the existing interim arrangement addressed the issue of the party's day-to-day operations.

The dispute relates to three HDFC Bank accounts of the Trinamool, which were initially subjected to debit restrictions by the bank following directions from the West Bengal Police and were subsequently frozen by the ED. On July 9, the Calcutta High Court had permitted the Trinamool to use the three accounts for meeting daily expenditure, including legal expenses, subject to strict supervision.

A single-judge Bench of Justice Sougata Bhattacharya had appointed retired Justice Subrata Talukdar as Special Officer to operate the three accounts till September 30.

Under the arrangement, two authorised signatories of the Trinamool could draw money by signing cheques, but such cheques were required to carry the counter-signature of the Special Officer.

The three accounts, which had total deposits of around Rs 440 crore, had been subjected to debit restrictions after the police received complaints alleging that the funds could be misused and could contain proceeds of corruption and extortion.

The matter subsequently came within the ED's ambit after the federal financial agency initiated an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) on June 23 based on a predicate FIR registered by the Cyber Crime Police Station, Bidhannagar.

The ED imposed debit restrictions under Section 17(1-A) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), alleging suspicious transactions amounting to around Rs 164 crore.

The Trinamool challenged the action before the Calcutta High Court, contending that the freezing was arbitrary and mechanical and that the probe agency had failed to identify or segregate any specific proceeds of crime. However, on July 20, a single-judge Bench of Justice Krishna Rao refused to grant interim relief to the party, observing that there was no prima facie case or balance of convenience in its favour.

--IANS

pds/vd