The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Election Commission (EC) to spell out the timeframe within which it can finally decide the dispute between the two rival factions of the Trinamool Congress (TMC) over its name and “flowers and grass” election symbol.“We know what delay did in Shiv Sena,” a bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant said, referring to the delay in deciding the Shiv Sena dispute.The bench — which also included Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana — said the dispute should be decided expeditiously.The top court’s comment came after senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the TMC rival faction led by Ritabrata Banerjee, submitted that EC had passed similar interim orders in earlier party-symbol disputes, including the Shiv Sena matter.In its September 17, the poll panel barred the two rival factions from using the TMC name and symbol for the forthcoming election. As an interim arrangement, the poll panel allotted the name ‘Mamata All India Trinamool Congress’ and the ‘Football Player’ symbol to the Mamata Banerjee-led faction, while the Ritabrata Banerjee-led faction was allotted the name ‘Democratic Trinamool Congress’ and the ‘Envelope’ symbol.On Thursday, while hearing former West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee’s against EC’s decision to freeze TMC’s name and symbol, the bench asked the poll panel to suggest a “reasonable” timeframe that would allow both sides a fair opportunity to present their evidence while enabling the poll panel to reach a final decision.Asking senior counsel DS Naidu, representing the poll panel, to spell out the timeline for finally deciding the TMC name-symbol dispute, the bench posted Banerjee’s petition for further hearing on September 28.“How much time do you expect to take for the final adjudication? Only for this limited purpose… reasonable time in which parties are given a fair opportunity and you have time to apply your mind… but not too long,” the CJI told Naidu.On behalf of Banerjee, senior advocate Kapil Sibal questioned the timing of EC’s interim order, alleging it was passed after the byelection process commenced and denied Banerjee an opportunity to avail legal remedies.“Can EC delay matters, and then pass orders in the midst of elections knowing that I won’t have a remedy,” Sibal wondered.Noting that the dispute reached the poll panel in July, he said EC could have passed an order before the election process began. “The intent of EC is to leave me without a remedy,” he added.The bench, however, said the election schedule had already been notified and that EC’s interim arrangement for the notified byelection “cannot be touched” at this stage.The bench said the immediate issue was if EC had arrived at a prima facie satisfaction before concluding that an interim arrangement was necessary to “place both the rival groups on even keel”.“There was no consideration at all,” Sibal said, adding that Banerjee was not seeking to challenge the interim arrangement at this stage and instead urged the bench to direct the poll panel to complete the adjudication in October. He said local body elections were also to be held in coming months in West Bengal.Rohatgi, however, said an October deadline would be too short and sought more “breathing time” for the rival faction to present its case.