While rejecting the application filed by Trinamool Congress leader Abhishek Banerjee seeking to recall previous orders of the High Court directing CBI and ED probe against him in the school jobs for cash scam.

The single bench headed by Justice Amrita Sinha imposed a fine of ₹25 lakh on Abhishek Banerjee.

Earlier the bench headed by Abhijit Banerjee ordered CBI and ED probe against him in the said matter.

Kuntal Ghosh, another accused in the said matter filed the petition, alleging that he was being tortured by the ED officers to implicate Abhishek Banerjee in the case.

The Court rejected the petition and imposed costs of ₹25 lakh on both Abhishek Banerjee and Kuntal Ghosh. 

"Both the applications are dismissed, with costs of ₹50 lakh. Each one has to deposit ₹25 lakh," Justice Sinha pronounced in the court.

In her order, justice Sinha also pulled up the CBI and the ED for its slow pace in the investigations.

"Whatever is mentioned in the sealed envelopes is of pre-historic age. The agencies have given details of what happened in 2022 but we are in 2023. No new and recent development ia mentioned in these envelopes. Are the agencies waiting for the evidences to have vanished?" Justice Sinha told the advocates representing both CBI and ED.

In the previous orders, Justice Gangopadhyay had noted that the allegations made by Ghosh were in proximity with the public speech made by Banerjee on March 29, who too claimed that people arrested in the case are being forced to name him.

Later the matter had gotten transferred to Justice Sinha pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court.

Senior advocate Kishore Datta, appearing for Banerjee submitted that the ED did not make any prayer or pleading against his client in its application before Justice Gangopadhyay.

"The judge (Justice Gangopadhyay), however, said in his order that there was some connection between my client's speech and the complaints made by accused Kuntal Ghosh. One needs to question as to on what basis were these findings arrived at? He made some observations but based on what material? It was an ex-parte order," Banerjee's lawyer had argued.

Counsel for Banerjee said, "If the judge in the instant case desired that the present matter be heard by him, he could have at best passed an order to place the case papers before the Chief Justice for transferring cases to himself. But such a thing never happened in the instant case," he argued.