ED official's transfer: high court recuses from hearing case | chandigarh | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Feb 26, 2017-Sunday
New Delhi
  • Humidity
  • Wind

ED official's transfer: high court recuses from hearing case

chandigarh Updated: Mar 18, 2015 16:04 IST
HT Correspondent
HT Correspondent
Hindustan Times
Punjab and Haryana high court


The Punjab and Haryana high court on Wednesday recused from hearing case on transfer of Enforcement Directorate official Niranjan Singh, involved in the investigations into the money laundering case in the Bhola drug racket.

In the last hearing on March 12, The ED had submitted before the Punjab and Haryana high court names of two officers who could take over the case from him if the court approved his shifting from Jalandhar to Kolkata. Even as stay on the transfer continues, the ED submitted that two officers had gone to Jalandhar as his replacement.

On February 26, the high court had asked the ED to suggest the names of some good officers who could take up the case in case Niranjan Singh was transferred. It has now directed the ED to state on affidavit the names of these officers.

In January, advocate Navkiran Singh had challenged the transfer order of Niranjan Singh, saying it was a move to distance him from the investigation for his guts to summon politicians. Niranjan Singh, present during the hearing, looked on as Navkiran insisted that the officer be asked to file an affidavit on the investigation status and how much more time he needed to crack the case. The court also took note of the media reports on the issue.

Niranjan Singh was transferred to Kolkata on January 16 when he was leading a team looking into the money-laundering allegations related to the drug racket and had questioned Akali cabinet minister Bikram Singh Majithia among others. His transfer order had triggered a political storm, as the hand of top politicians blamed in the scandal was seen in it.

Advocates’ group Lawyers for Human Rights International, a party to the drug case, had filed an application to question the timing of the move, following which the high court had stayed the order on January 21. The stay would continue till further orders.