NEW DELHI: The Delhi high court on Thursday granted three Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders, including party national convenor Arvind Kejriwal, one final opportunity to file their replies to the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) revision petition challenging a trial court order discharging all accused in the Delhi excise policy case.Justice Manoj Jain noted that no counsel appeared for any of the respondents during the hearing. Besides Kejriwal, former Delhi deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia and AAP leader Durgesh Pathak are respondents in the matter.Appearing for the CBI, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, along with Additional Solicitor General DP Singh, told the court that only the three AAP leaders are yet to file their replies despite being granted earlier opportunities.Taking note of the delay, Justice Jain granted them one final opportunity to place their replies on record, making it clear that no further adjournments would be granted. The matter has been listed for hearing on August 17 and 18.During the proceedings, Mehta urged the bench to advance the hearing to the last week of July, arguing that the matter warranted expeditious consideration. The court said it would examine the request but observed that preponing the hearing “appears a little difficult”. It added that the possibility would be reassessed if the court’s board permitted.The high court also directed that the interim order in the matter would continue until the next date of hearing.The CBI has challenged the February 27 trial court order discharging all accused, including Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak, in the Delhi excise policy case.Earlier, after the case was transferred from Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma to Justice Manoj Jain, the high court directed the CBI to formally inform the three AAP leaders of the transfer. The court observed that although the development had been widely reported in the media, formal intimation should nevertheless be given to ensure that all parties appeared before the present bench.The CBI has argued that the discharge order is legally unsustainable and sought its reversal, contending that the case involves serious allegations and that sufficient material exists to proceed against the accused.(With ANI inputs)
