The Bombay High Court has reserved its verdict on whether the petition filed by former Maharashtra Home Minister Anil Deshmukh seeking quashing of summons issued by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) will lie before a single-judge or Division Bench of the High Court (Anil Deshmukh v. Directorate of Enforcement & Ors.)..Deshmukh had challenged the summons issued by the ED in the money laundering case which was initiated by ED after the after the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed a first information report (FIR) following a Court-directed enquiry into allegations of corruption against Deshmukh..Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhri appearing for Deshmukh. began his submissions for grant of interim relief arguing that "Deshmukh is running helter-skelter as he needs protection. While the matter is pending, they (CBI) have been creating undue sensation, violating norms and selectively leaking documents and information.".Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the agency, however brought to the Court's notice a query raised by the registry about the maintainability of a petition before the single-judge..Mehta contended that while this is not an objection raised by the ED "in case of confusion it is always better to err on safer side.""What the Division Bench can decide, the single-judge may not be able to decide, but what the single-judge can decide, the Division Bench can always decide," Mehta said. He also pointed out that no prejudice will be caused to Deshmukh if the matter is placed for hearing before a Division Bench..Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, placed reliance on the Bombay High Court (Appellate Side) Rules, specifically Rule 17 in Chapter 17, to contend that the reliefs in the petition require the High Court to exercise its constitutional jurisdiction and as per the Rules it ought to lie before Division Bench. .Advocate Aniket Nikam also appearing for Deshmukh, countered Singh's submission, stating that the rule which Singh relied upon pertained to petitions filed along with Article 226 and 227. He relied on Rule 2 of chapter 1 of the Rules which provide that criminal applications are maintainable before the single-judge. Nikam also pointed out that the summons issued under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) have to be challenged before single-judge only..After hearing the arguments, Justice Sandeep K Shinde reserved this order on the issue while clarifying that he will deal with the issue as a query by the registry and not as a preliminary objection raised by the ED.He indicated that the decision will be pronounced on Monday, September 13 at 3 pm. .ED had initiated the probe claiming that the former Minister had misused his position by directing dismissed Mumbai cop Sachin Waze to collect money to the tune of ₹4.7 crore from various restaurants and bars in Mumbai..In order to conduct further investigation into these charges, ED issued five summons to Deshmukh asking him to appear before its officials for questioning.Reportedly, Deshmukh skipped all five summons with a response that he was seeking appropriate legal remedy in courts.These summons have been challenged in the present case. .Along with quashing of the summons, Deshmukh has sought directions to the ED to permit him to appear for questioning through video conference.He has also sought constitution of a Special Investigative Team (SIT) to monitor the probe which is ongoing in ED's Mumbai Zonal Office.However, Deshmukh's counsel clarified during the course of the hearing that he will not press the prayer for SIT.