New Delhi [India], August 17 : The Delhi High Court on Monday granted four weeks to Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and other respondents to file their responses to additional written submissions filed by the CBI in its revision petition challenging their discharge in the excise policy case.
Justice Manoj Jain heard the matter and fixed October 5 and 6 for arguments on the CBI's revision petition.
The court passed the direction after the respondents sought time to respond to the CBI's written submissions, which, according to their counsel, contained additional grounds and material.
Senior Advocate Hariharan, appearing for Kejriwal, submitted that the CBI had recently filed written submissions running into 103 pages. He said certain grounds raised in the submissions were not part of the original revision petition.
He also pointed out that two annexures had been filed along with the submissions and sought an opportunity to file a response.
The respondents also raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the CBI's revision petition.
Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhri appeared for Durgesh Pathak and submitted that the court should first examine whether the CBI revision petition was properly constituted and maintainable in law. He said the objection was not merely about whether the petition could be entertained but whether it qualified as a revision petition at all.
The Bench referred to an earlier order and observed that similarly placed respondents had already raised objections regarding maintainability and, with the consent of their counsel, the issue had been kept to be considered along with the arguments.
Chaudhri maintained that his objection concerned the very nature of the CBI revision petition and sought an opportunity to address the court on the issue.
The CBI opposed the objections raised by the respondents.
The Bench said it had taken note of the preliminary objections but did not want to consider them in a piecemeal manner. "We've taken note of your objection, but we do not want to hear it in piecemeal," the court said.
The Bench further told Chaudhri that it would decide when the preliminary objections should be considered and asked him not to make their prior consideration a precondition for proceeding with the matter. "Let me decide as to when it should be heard. Do not make it a precondition," the Bench said.
The court also pointed out that the respondents had filed applications raising preliminary objections but had not filed their replies to the CBI's revision petition despite several opportunities."You've chosen to file an application taking some preliminary objection. You have not filed your replies. You cannot be selective," the Bench observed.
The court referred to its July 16 order granting two weeks to the respondents to file their replies and asked whether the directions had been complied with. The Bench also observed that the respondents' objections should not prevent the CBI from commencing arguments on its revision petition.
At the same time, the court indicated that the respondents would be permitted to respond to any new grounds or material contained in the CBI's written submissions which were not part of the original revision petition.
The court granted four weeks to the respondents to file their responses and made it clear that no further material would be entertained thereafter.
It then fixed October 5 and 6 for commencement of arguments on behalf of the CBI.
The CBI has filed the revision petition challenging the February 27 order of the Special Judge, CBI, Rouse Avenue Courts, by which 23 accused in the excise policy case were discharged.
Kejriwal, Sisodia and other respondents have opposed the CBI revision petition and have raised objections to its maintainability.
Kejriwal and Sisodia have separately filed applications seeking dismissal of the CBI revision petition, contending that the agency filed its challenge within hours of the trial court's discharge order.
They have also argued that the revision petition does not identify specific findings in the discharge order to establish alleged illegality or perversity and have questioned the scope of the CBI's challenge.
The respondents have further contended that the CBI revision petition seeks examination of evidence beyond the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.
The CBI has opposed the respondents' objections and is seeking consideration of its revision petition against the discharge order.