Agartala: The Tripura High Court has dismissed an application filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) seeking to lift an interim stay on proceedings against suspended IAS officer Abhishek Chandra under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.
A Division Bench comprising Justice T. Amarnath Goud and Justice Biswajit Palit passed the order on November 10, 2026, while hearing an application filed by the Union Government and the Enforcement Directorate.
The court directed that its September 16 interim order, which had suspended proceedings initiated through a provisional property attachment order dated July 31, 2026, would continue pending disposal of Chandra’s writ petition.
The Bench observed that the grievances raised by the officer required detailed examination, particularly in the context of compliance with Section 5(5) of the PMLA. It also held that the balance of convenience favoured the petitioner.
Why Did the ED Seek Vacation of the Interim Stay?
The Union Government and the ED had approached the High Court seeking recall of its September 16 order, which had suspended the proceedings initiated against Chandra through the provisional attachment order.
Appearing for the agency, Deputy Solicitor General B. Majumder argued that the writ petition was not maintainable because the officer had alternative statutory remedies available under the PMLA.
The ED submitted that the matter should first be examined by the Adjudicating Authority, followed by the appellate mechanism under Section 26 and a further appeal before the High Court under Section 42 of the Act.
The agency also pointed out that the provisional attachment order, issued on July 31, was valid for 180 days and argued that its validity period would expire in the coming months.
To support its position, the ED relied on Supreme Court judgments, including P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement and Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India.
What Did Abhishek Chandra’s Counsel Argue?
Opposing the ED’s 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 contended that the ED had failed to comply with the requirements of Section 5 of the PMLA, particularly the statutory safeguards governing provisional attachment of property.
The petitioner’s counsel also submitted that Chandra was not named in any of the five FIRs relied upon in the proceedings and that no allegations against him appeared in those cases.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, the counsel argued that the High Court could entertain a writ petition in exceptional circumstances, including alleged violations of statutory provisions or jurisdictional requirements.
Why Did the High Court Allow the Interim Protection to Continue?
After considering the submissions, the Division Bench observed that the legality of the provisional attachment proceedings required examination in the light of Section 5(5) of the PMLA.
The court also noted that the ED’s counsel had confined his arguments to the application seeking vacation of the interim stay, even though a counter-affidavit had been filed in the main writ petition.
The Bench observed that the issues raised by the petitioner required detailed consideration and could not be conclusively examined while deciding only the application to vacate the interim protection.
Taking note of the statutory provisions and the grievances raised by Chandra, the court held that the balance of convenience was in his favour.
Accordingly, it ordered:
- The ED’s application seeking vacation of the interim stay was dismissed.
- The interim order dated September 16, 2026, suspending the proceedings initiated on July 31, would continue.
- The stay was made absolute pending disposal of the writ petition.
- The connected writ petition, WP(Crl.) No. 14 of 2026, was directed to be listed as part-heard along with WP(Crl.) No. 11 of 2026 on November 24, 2026.
What Is the ED Case Against IAS Officer Abhishek Chandra?
The ED’s investigation relates to an alleged financial fraud involving impersonation of government officials and the use of entities bearing names similar to government departments and public sector organisations to deceive investors and businessmen.
According to the agency, the alleged scheme involved Utpal Kumar Chowdhury and his associates, who reportedly projected themselves as government representatives and offered business opportunities linked to government tenders, Mid-Day Meal supply contracts and rubber trading.
The investigation was initiated on the basis of multiple FIRs registered in Tripura and West Bengal concerning allegations of cheating, forgery, criminal breach of trust and impersonation.
The ED has alleged that proceeds generated through the scheme were routed through shell entities and subsequently used to acquire properties, vehicles and other assets.
ED Provisionally Attaches Assets Worth ₹1.12 Crore
On July 31, 2026, the ED’s Agartala Sub-Zonal Office issued a provisional attachment order covering bank balances worth approximately ₹1.12 crore under the PMLA.
According to the agency, the attached balances were held in the names of shell entities linked to Utpal Kumar Chowdhury, Abhishek Chandra and a private housing company.
The ED further alleged that Chandra received proceeds of crime directly into his personal bank accounts and indirectly through payments made by entities associated with the alleged scheme to a private housing company for booking a flat in his name.
With the July 31 attachment, the total value of assets provisionally attached across two orders in the case reached approximately ₹1.63 crore, according to the agency.
Who Is IAS Officer Abhishek Chandra?
Abhishek Chandra is a 2003-batch Indian Administrative Service officer of the Tripura cadre (IAS: 2003: TR). He is currently under suspension, with his headquarters at Agartala.
During his administrative career, he has held several assignments in the Tripura government and on central deputation.
His previous positions include:
- Special Secretary, Planning (Statistics) Department, Tripura: He was holding this assignment before being placed on compulsory waiting in August 2025.
- Special Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department, Tripura: Served in the state administration.
- Special Secretary, SC Welfare Department, Tripura: Also held responsibilities in the department.
- Director, Shipping, Government of India: Served on central deputation from March 2015 to March 2020.
- District Collector and District Magistrate, Kailashahar: Held the district-level administrative assignment from June 2012 to March 2015.
- Director, Social Welfare Department, Tripura: Served from October 2011 to June 2012.
- Project Director, District Rural Development Agency: Held the assignment from December 2006 to October 2011.
The officer was placed on compulsory waiting by the Tripura Government in August 2025 and was subsequently placed under suspension.
With the latest order, the High Court has maintained the interim protection granted to Chandra while the main writ petition remains pending. The next hearing is scheduled for November 24, 2026.
Read Also: Who Is Nagaraju Maddirala? Tripura Cadre Ex-IAS Officer Appointed Chairman and MD of IL&FS
