Tripura High Court Refuses to Lift Stay on PMLA Proceedings Against Suspended IAS Officer Abhishek Chandra
The Tripura High Court has declined to lift its interim stay on proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against suspended 2003-batch IAS officer Abhishek Chandra under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. The decision allows the interim protection granted to the officer to remain in force until the disposal of his pending writ petition.
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 seeking vacation of the interim relief granted earlier.
The Bench directed that its September 16, 2026, order, which had stayed proceedings arising from a provisional property attachment order dated July 31, 2026, would continue.
The court observed that the grievances raised by Chandra required detailed judicial examination, particularly concerning compliance with Section 5(5) of the PMLA. It also held that the balance of convenience favoured the petitioner.
Why Did the ED Approach the High Court?
The Union Government and the ED had filed an application seeking the recall of the High Court’s September 16 interim order, which had suspended proceedings initiated through the provisional attachment order.
Appearing for the agency, Deputy Solicitor General B. Majumder argued that Chandra’s writ petition was not maintainable because the PMLA provides alternative statutory remedies for challenging attachment proceedings.
The ED submitted that the matter should first be examined by the Adjudicating Authority, followed by the appellate mechanism under Section 26 and, subsequently, an 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 does not automatically prevent the High Court from exercising its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226.
He contended that the ED had failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 5 of the PMLA, particularly the statutory safeguards governing provisional attachment of property.
The petitioner’s counsel also submitted that Chandra had not been 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 can entertain a writ petition in exceptional circumstances, including cases involving alleged violations of statutory provisions or jurisdictional requirements.
Why Did the High Court Continue the Interim Protection?
After considering the submissions from both sides, the Division Bench observed that the legality of the provisional attachment proceedings required closer examination, particularly in the context of Section 5(5) of the PMLA.
The court also noted that the ED’s counsel had confined his submissions to the application seeking vacation of the interim stay, even though a counter-affidavit had already been filed in the main writ petition.
The Bench observed that the issues raised by Chandra required detailed consideration and could not be conclusively determined while examining only the application seeking withdrawal of interim protection.
Taking into account the statutory provisions and the grievances raised by the petitioner, the court concluded that the balance of convenience favoured him. Accordingly, the High Court passed the following directions:
* ED’s Application Dismissed: The application seeking vacation of the interim stay was rejected.
* September 16 Order Continued: The interim order suspending proceedings initiated through the July 31 provisional attachment order will remain in force.
* Interim Protection Made Absolute: The stay will continue pending disposal of the main writ petition.
* Next Hearing: WP(Crl.) No. 14 of 2026 will be listed as part-heard along with WP(Crl.) No. 11 of 2026 on November 24, 2026.
What Is the ED’s Case Against IAS Officer Abhishek Chandra?
The Enforcement Directorate’s investigation concerns 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 purportedly presented themselves as government representatives and offered business opportunities linked to government tenders, Mid-Day Meal supply contracts and rubber trading.
The investigation originated from 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 purported 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 funds were held in accounts belonging to shell entities allegedly 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 through two orders in the case reached approximately ₹1.63 crore, according to the agency. These allegations remain subject to the ongoing legal proceedings.
Who Is IAS Officer Abhishek Chandra?
Abhishek Chandra is a 2003-batch IAS 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 important assignments in the Tripura government as well as on central deputation.
His previous positions include:
* Special Secretary, Planning (Statistics) Department, Tripura: Held 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 position from December 2006 to October 2011.
The Tripura government placed him on compulsory waiting in August 2025 before subsequently placing him under suspension.
High Court Protection to Continue Until November 24 Hearing
With its latest decision, the Tripura High Court has declined to interfere with the interim protection previously granted to Abhishek Chandra against the proceedings arising from the provisional attachment order. The main writ petition remains pending, and the court is scheduled to take up the connected matters on November 24, 2026.
The forthcoming hearing will be important in determining the further course of the legal proceedings concerning the ED’s provisional attachment action and the statutory objections raised by the suspended IAS officer.
