There was no bias on part of Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay while ordering probe against Trinamool Congress leader Abhishek Banerjee in relation the school jobs for cash scam, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) told the Calcutta High Court [Abhishek Banerjee vs Soumen Nandy]..Single-judge Justice Amrita Sinha was told that there was no wrong on part of the Justice Gangopadhyay in passing the order and that the ED can probe anyone and everyone while investigating cases that affects the public at large. "Supreme Court simplicitor passed a transfer order (to transfer the said matter from Justice Gangopadhyay to Justice Sinha) and did not comment anything on the merits of the case. It is nobody's case that scam has not taken place. Such financial scams are breaking the backbone of the society," the counsel appearing for ED told the judge. The Court was hearing an application filed by Banerjee to recall the order passed on April 13 by Justice Gangopadhyay ordering the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the ED to probe his role in the school jobs for cash scam.Justice Gangopadhyay had, on April 13 passed an order asking the ED to probe the role of Banerjee in the scam. The order was passed on an application filed by ED seeking protection from police action against its officers, as one accused Kuntal Ghosh had made allegations of torture against the ED officers. He had also alleged that he was being pressurised to name Banerjee in the case.Justice Gangopadhyay, in his April 13 order, had noted that Ghosh made the allegations in the proximity of the public speech of the TMC leader Banerjee, who had also made similar claims that people arrested in the school jobs for cash scam, were being forced to name him in the case. The case relating to Banerjee was subsequently transferred to Justice Amrita Sinha.This came about after Supreme Court on April 28 ordered the Calcutta High Court Chief Justice to reassign the case from Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay's bench to some other bench as the judge had given an interview to news channel ABP Ananda against Banerjee..The counsel for ED argued that the bench of Justice Sinha cannot consider or even hear the review plea filed against the order of Justice Gangopadhyay."This bench cannot review the order of the co-ordinate bench of Justice Gangopadhyay," the counsel told the bench.The ED counsel pointed out that Banerjee through the instant plea has sought to recall a particular part of the order where probe is ordered against him and not the entire order.The counsel further argued that Banerjee cannot allege bias against the judge as the anti-money laundering agency itself is empowered to probe anyone and everyone."We can probe anyone and everyone related to the case. Anybody and everybody can come under our probe scanner. What wrong has the judge done? What is the apprehension? It was already under my ambit and within my powers so what bias was there?" the counsel argued.The counsel added that if any order is passed in favour of Banerjee, then it would have a direct impact on the probe in the scam case."If this order says no coercive steps to be taken, that will stand as a salvation of the petitioner to deter me from taking my investigation forward. It would impact the overall investigations in the case," the counsel submitted. Finally, the counsel highlighted the fact that the Supreme Court while ordering transfer of the case from Justice Gangopadhyay, had not commented on the merits of the case."The Supreme Court did not touch the propriety of the order passed by Justice Gangopadhyay, thus, they cannot argue that the same needs to be reviewed or recalled. The top court did not comment on the merits of the case," the counsel contended. .Seeking recalling of the April 13 orders, the counsel for Banerjee submitted that the Supreme Court's order reassigning the matter, confirmed that there was bias on part of Justice Gangopadhyay."If this order (April 13) is not gone, then my client will not face a fair trial. One of my arguments before the Supreme Court was this and thus there has been a transfer order. So with the transfer order, even the impugned order should go," the advocate highlighted. The order does not point out anywhere if my client's name is taken but only the judge mentioned it in the order. This shows the judge had some information about the speech, the counsel pointed out. "If ED has any material till now against me only then I should go. It is not even the case of the CBI or the ED if there is any material against me. They do not even say that I might be a witness or something in this case. So, order against the speech is a prejudice to me," Banerjee's counsel argued.