The Supreme Court is hearing the appeal moved by the Maharashtra government and former State Home Minister Anil Deshmukh challenging the Bombay High Court order allowing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct a preliminary inquiry into allegations made by former Mumbai Police Commissioner, Param Bir Singh, against Deshmukh..Live updates of the hearing today feature here. .Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi: I appear for Maharastra. Note three striking things. On March 21, one Jayshree Patil complains within 48 hours, she files a writ on March 23 is not on board. No listing. Param Bir's writ was listed on March 23.Singhvi: On March 31, matter was heard only on maintainability. The AG of Maharashtra argues on the same and division bench records that hearing was on maintainability, admission and interim order..Singhvi: Without giving any chance to the State to present their side, we atleast deserve to put across our points on merits. From 18 to 25. all are maintainability arguments by AG. Then the order says parties were heard in support of their prayers for admission of writ as well as for interim relief and maintainability of writ by AG..Singhvi: 4th writ which is not on record by Jayshri Patil was heard and an order is passed..Singhvi: Issue of maintainability is not decided. Lordships should have at least allowed us to file a counter as the State had much to say. There is a 156(3) procedure where it has been held by this court that if one has a grievance they have to go under this section..Singhvi: Everytime one has to go to this section one has to go through CBI prayer.Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul: All these problems are arising because of the fall out that has happened. Allegations are extremely serious and it becomes curious and curious. In this scenario is it not a CBI probe case?.Justice Kaul: The two persons involved in this case were working together unless they fell apart. Now an independent investigating agency needs to probe it. Is he not a home Minister? .Singhvi: He resigned immediately.Justice Kaul: Then does that make the order improper? Sometimes it's too elaborate an order on what's to be done..Singhvi: State has withdrawn general consent long ago. As far as CBI is concerned Section 6 DSPE says CBI cannot go into one state without their consent. Only exception is when High Court or Supreme Court orders..Singhvi: But here it only says preliminary enquiry. Here you order preliminary enquiry and not an investigation..Singhvi: CBI reference becomes a ground to circumvent Section 156 also..Singhvi: Was I heard on why CBI should not enter the case? .Justice Kaul: Mr Singhvi I have noted a counter-affidavit should have been called for. But you were there very much in the hearing.Justice Kaul: Episode occurred when he was the Home Minister and one was the police Commissioner. Your ... did not make these allegations. One can say he (Param Bir Singh) who was your right hand made these allegations?.Justice Gupta: He did not resign when Commission of enquiry was ordered. He ordered after the High Court order. He was clinging to his office..Justice Gupta: FIR is to be lodged as soon as you receive the information. You did not. You sat over it. You have to at least conduct preliminary enquiry... .Singhvi: This is a larger issue..Justice Kaul: Looking at the personas involved and the seriousness of allegations, an independent enquiry is called for. You can't say it affects the federal structure. This does not happen every day. Both have been heads of institution where something has gone wrong..Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal for Anil Deshmukh: I was the home Minister and targeted. Should I be heard before an order is passed? .Justice Hemant Gupta: Should a suspect be heard before preliminary enquiry .Sibal: This is not a res Integra anymore.Senior Advocate Sibal: it's a complete mockery of justice. Diary entries were seized which named certain people in common cause case. Pursuant to that plea was filed for probe and this Court had dismissed the same..Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal: if I make an allegation against a minister not supported by evidence can a CBI probe be ordered? There is no value in law. .Justice Kaul: He wrote a letter.. .Sibal: That has no evidentiary value. It's like giving a press conference.Sibal: CBI enquiry ordered without hearing me. .Justice Kaul: You must have trusted each other. One is a Home Minister and one is a Police Commissioner. We have held different caps so I don't have to tell you.. .Sibal: I don't know when trust came and trust went.Sibal: After certain explosives was found near an industrialists house, he was shifted from his position on March 17 .Justice Kaul: Is it for preliminary enquiry? .Sibal: Yes .Sibal: Will it be safe to even start an investigation? .Justice Kaul: It's not a case of political or business rivalry. This is the case of a senior-most minister and senior-most police officer. If it was a diary entry, then okay. But it's heard from others..Sibal: Let probe be from High Court or Supreme Court .Justice Kaul: You cannot pick and choose the investigating agency .Sibal: It was a hearsay and not even a direct evidence. .Senior Advocate Sibal: Is this statement Param Bir based in hearsay and heard from three people? Have you asked for my explanation? I was not even put to notice. Why should I give version to a prosecuting agency? .Senior Advocate Sibal reads the Lalita Kumari judgment. .Justice Kaul: Where is Mr Sibal? .System stops. .Senior Advocate Harish Salve: Even the system crashed hearing these arguments.Senior Advocate Harish Salve: Just to save time. There is a direct judgment that accused has no right to be heard. .Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal resumes: Today morning another statement had been made that another Minister has taken 50 crores. But all these have no evidentiary value or supporting documents. All of this is hearsay and is made a base of CBI probe..Sibal: He should be made a party so that he was heard. You had ruled earlier that since a party was not made a part of the proceedings and thus the order was set aside..Sibal: What is the status of such an order? I was made a party for what purpose? To take my version on record? .Justice Kaul: It is only a matter of Investigation .Sibal: It's only such a case when there is some prosecutable evidence. That is what this court has held..Sibal: Problem with outside agency is that I should not be vilified unheard. Had my version come on record, this situation would not have arisen. .Justice Gupta: My query was, can a suspect be heard? .Sibal: It's a preliminary enquiry. I am not an accused or a suspect..Sibal: There are no material or facts. These are hearsay statements..Sachin Waze tells another person and then that person tells Bhujbal and Bhujbal tells the Police Commissioner and then Police Commissioner makes this statement.Justice Hemant Gupta: Read the para 22 of the judgment you are referring to. That's what.. high officials of the state is involved and thus enquiry was ordered. .Sibal: Will you lay down a law that if high officials are involved then CBI enquiry can be ordered? I don't think you will.Sibal: Setting criminal law in motion is fraught with serious consequences. Accused gets a right of hearing after charge sheet is filed. No judicial order can ever be passed without hearing the person involved..Sibal: Please see the allegations levelled by Jayshree Patil ... Jayshree Patil has pasted entire statement by Param Bir and has filed a writ. Is this the manner on (which) basis CBI enquiry can be ordered?.Sibal: It will be a sad day in this country if you uphold an order like this. Such an order cannot be passed behind my back.BREAKING: Supreme Court dismisses the appeal.. Justice Kaul dictates order: Nature of allegations and persons involved needs an enquiry by independent agency. It is a matter of public confidence. We are not inclined to entertain this. Dismissed.