The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Monday approached the Supreme Court by filing a second writ petition, alleging that its officers were unlawfully restrained during search operations conducted at the Kolkata office of political consultancy firm Indian PAC Consulting Private Limited (I-PAC) and at the residence of its director last week. The central probe agency claimed that the interference by senior state authorities severely disrupted its investigation into an alleged coal pilferage and money-laundering case.
The petition has been filed by three Assistant Directors of the ED — Nishant Kumar, Vikram Ahlawat, and Prashant Chandila — and names West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, Director General of Police Rajeev Kumar, Kolkata Police Commissioner Manoj Kumar Verma, and Deputy Commissioner Priyobtoto Roy as respondents. The ED has accused them of “wrongful restraint” and obstruction of lawful duties during raids conducted on December 8.
According to the petition, ED officials were carrying out searches as part of an investigation linked to an alleged coal-smuggling syndicate when the incident occurred. The agency stated that the search at the residence of Pratik Jain, associated with I-PAC, began at around 6:20 a.m. While the operation was underway and documents had already been identified and taken into possession for seizure, senior state authorities allegedly entered the premises without legal authorization.
The ED claimed that the Chief Minister, accompanied by the Kolkata Police Commissioner, forcibly entered the location and restrained the officers who were conducting the search. The petition alleges that during this intervention, documents and digital devices that had been seized by the ED — including laptops and mobile phones — were taken away from the officers. The agency further stated that the officials left the premises carrying a large trunk filled with files, thereby removing all materials collected during the search.
In a particularly serious allegation, the ED said that the laptop of one of its officers was taken and kept in the possession of the state authorities for approximately two hours before being returned. The agency argued that this act amounts to theft and constitutes a criminal offence, especially given the sensitive nature of the investigation and the official status of the seized device.
The petition further detailed a series of alleged actions that disrupted the search process. Around 12:40 p.m., the ED claimed that state police personnel took away documents that had already been collected and properly indexed by ED officers. The agency also stated that the backup process of computer systems and official emails at the premises was abruptly halted midway, after which the computer systems were seized by state security personnel.
Additionally, the ED alleged that the storage devices of CCTV cameras installed at the premises were taken away, and mobile phones belonging to employees present during the raid were also confiscated by state police. As a result of these actions, the ED said it was unable to seize any documents or complete data backups, effectively nullifying the search operation.
The probe agency argued that such actions not only interfered with an ongoing investigation but also violated constitutional principles and the statutory powers granted to central investigative agencies under law. The ED has requested the Supreme Court to take cognizance of the matter and issue appropriate directions to prevent such interference in the future.
On the same day as the confrontation, the West Bengal Police registered four cases against ED officials involved in the search operation. The ED has challenged these cases in the Supreme Court as well, seeking an immediate stay on proceedings against its officers. The agency contended that the registration of cases against its officials was retaliatory in nature and intended to intimidate and obstruct central investigations.
The searches conducted by the ED were part of a larger investigation into a coal-smuggling case registered in 2020 by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The case revolves around an alleged coal pilferage racket led by Anup Majhi, also known as “Lala,” who is accused of illegally extracting and stealing coal from leasehold areas of Eastern Coalfields Limited in and around Asansol, located in West Bengal’s Paschim Bardhaman district.
According to the ED, proceeds from the illegal coal trade were laundered through a network of shell companies and hawala operators. The agency alleged that a hawala operator connected to the coal-smuggling syndicate facilitated financial transactions amounting to several crores of rupees to Indian PAC Consulting Private Limited, the registered entity behind the political consultancy firm I-PAC.
The ED has claimed that I-PAC is among the entities linked to the alleged hawala transactions connected to the coal-smuggling case. As part of this investigation, the agency conducted raids at a total of ten locations — six in West Bengal and four in Delhi.
The matter has now reached the Supreme Court, which is expected to examine the competing claims of the central agency and the state government. The case has once again highlighted tensions between central investigative agencies and state authorities, raising broader questions about federalism, jurisdiction, and the autonomy of law enforcement bodies in India.
