Kolkata: The Mamata Banerjee faction of Trinamool Congress can withdraw money from its three frozen bank accounts for its day-to-day expenses under the supervision of retired judge Subrata Talukdar, Calcutta High Court ruled on Thursday.The bench of Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya described the police’s debit-freeze order on the three accounts at HDFC Bank’s Central Plaza branch in Kolkata as “hurried” and termed the timing of the complaint filed by rebel MLA Biswanath Das as “sheer opportunism”, given that he had been a “beneficiary” of the same accounts before the announcement of the assembly poll results on May 4.The rival Trinamool camp, led by Ritabrata Banerjee, said it would challenge the order in Supreme Court. “ED was not involved when the case was filed in HC. But now that we are filing a special leave petition in SC, ED will become a party,” said Ritabrata. ED had on Wednesday requested HDFC Bank to freeze Rs 440.4 crore in the three accounts in connection with a probe into alleged money laundering.Justice Bhattacharyya issued the order while hearing an appeal filed by the Mamata faction against the June 19 debit-freeze instruction issued by Bidhannagar police, based on Das’s FIR alleging fraud filed a day earlier.The bench appointed Justice Talukdar, a retired judge of the HC, as a special officer to supervise the withdrawal of the money from the three accounts by the Mamata camp till Sept 30. The faction will pay him a monthly honorarium of Rs 1.25 lakh from the funds drawn from the accounts.Justice Bhattacharyya clarified that the money withdrawn from the accounts could be used only to meet the day-to-day expenses of the Mamata camp, including legal costs.Justice Bhattacharyya questioned the “lightning speed” with which police acted on Das’s complaint. “When a poor citizen comes to a police station, the police are not activated, but when a complaint was lodged regarding three accounts… at 6 pm, the next morning it was intimated to those bank authorities to debit-freeze those accounts,” the judge told solicitor general Tushar Mehta, who appeared virtually for Bengal police. The material facts available with the cops suggested they acted “hurriedly,” the judge observed.Mehta submitted that after the FIR was registered, police recorded statements of three more complainants. And after the debit-freeze order was issued, he said, seven other MLAs lodged complaints alleging fraud.Mehta also argued that allowing the Mamata faction access to the bank accounts would, prima facie, amount to recognising it as the “actual TMC”, a status currently under dispute after the Ritabrata faction approached Election Commission claiming to be the “real Trinamool Congress”.Justice Bhattacharyya, however, refused to expand the scope of the June 18 complaint. “If any faction is later recognised by EC as true TMC, an appropriate application can be made to court,” he said.The counsel representing MLAs from the Ritabrata camp submitted, “According to us, we are the actual TMC… Any interim order passed by your lordship in appointment of a third-party judge has to be operated by us and not by them.”Justice Bhattacharyya remarked: “Your complaint has not instilled confidence at this stage. You were a member of TMC, fought the election, you won the election and after that when a new faction originated, you lodged a complaint. See the timing… Why did the de-facto complainant not raise the issue before May 4? It is nothing but sheer opportunism.”Senior advocate Kishore Datta, appearing for the Mamata faction, submitted that its pending liabilities included Rs 51 lakh in salaries for 215 employees, Rs 3.41 lakh and Rs 1.63 lakh towards payments to office staff and security personnel, respectively, Rs 1.07 crore in monthly rent for 17 offices, and Rs 9.43 crore payable to vendors for election-related activities.Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who was leading arguments for the Mamata faction, submitted that a political party needs funds to organise rallies and for other activities. “An order like this cripples a political party and violates the Constitution,” he argued, referring to the debit-freeze order.The bench ordered the bank authorities to preserve electronic records, bank data and financial evidence in regard to the accounts. The matter will be heard again on Sept 21.
