Agartala, Nov 10 :The Tripura High Court has dismissed an Enforcement Directorate (ED) plea seeking vacation of an interim stay on money laundering proceedings against suspended IAS officer Abhishek Chandra, allowing the protection to continue until disposal of his writ petition.
A Division Bench comprising Justices T Amarnath Goud and Biswajit Palit passed the order on November 10 while hearing an application filed by the Union of India and the ED.
The agency had sought recall of an interim order passed on September 16, which stayed proceedings initiated through a provisional attachment order dated July 31, 2026, under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Appearing for the ED, Deputy Solicitor General B Majumder argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as Chandra had alternative statutory remedies available under the PMLA.
He submitted that the matter should first be examined by the Adjudicating Authority, followed by the Appellate Tribunal under Section 26 and an appeal before the High Court under Section 42 of the Act.
The ED also contended that the provisional attachment order was valid for 180 days and its validity period would expire shortly. The agency relied on Supreme Court judgments, including P Chidambaram versus Directorate of Enforcement and Vijay Madanlal Choudhary versus Union of India, to support its arguments.
Opposing the application, advocate Navin Kumar, appearing for Chandra, argued that the availability of an alternative statutory remedy did not automatically prevent the High Court from exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
He submitted that the ED’s Deputy Director had failed to comply with the requirements of Section 5 of the PMLA. He further contended that Chandra was not named in any of the five FIRs relied upon by the agency and that no allegations against him figured in those cases.
The petitioner’s counsel cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Whirlpool Corporation versus Registrar of Trade Marks to argue that the High Court could entertain a writ petition in exceptional circumstances despite the availability of alternative remedies.
In its order, the Division Bench observed that the challenge to the provisional attachment proceedings required detailed examination, particularly in the light of Section 5(5) of the PMLA.
The court said the grievances raised by the petitioner warranted consideration and that the balance of convenience favoured him.
Holding that the issues required final adjudication after examining all relevant aspects, the Bench dismissed the ED’s application and directed that the interim protection granted on September 16 would continue pending disposal of the writ petition.
The court accordingly made the interim stay absolute.
