Hearing the PIL and a counter affidavit of petitioner Mithilesh Kumar Singh, Justice R R Prasad fixed January 31 for further hearing with a direction to the petitioner to come with specific points on which he wanted investigation against Kumar and Tiwari.
As per the High Court direction on an earlier date, the petitioner in his counter affidavit gave the list of witnesses and fodder accused who had purportedly "given statements" against Kumar and Tiwari.
It's reply came after the court asked the investigation agency why Kumar and Tiwari should not be arraigned as accused in the scam.
The CBI had also informed the bench that a lower court had twice rejected the plea of the petitioner, whose PIL sought to make Kumar and Tiwari as accused in the scam as they had allegedly been paid money.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
