New Delhi: Bitter feud between CBI director Alok Verma and special director Rakesh Asthana resurfaced on Friday in the Delhi high court when Mr Asthana claimed that prior government nod was needed for lodging FIR against him and DSP Devender Kumar in a graft case, a submission which was vehemently denied by his senior.

In response to Mr Asthana’s plea challenging the FIR, Mr Verma said in his affidavit that additional solicitor general (ASG) P.S. Narasimha’s view was sought by the CBI on the need for prior government approval to lodge an FIR against public servants facing allegations of corruption and he had opined that it was not required.

Mr Asthana’s submission before Justice Najmi Waziri was countered by CBI, Mr Verma and joint director A.K. Sharma who argued that no sanction was required as the allegations against the two officers were not in relation to the discharge of their duties or any recommendation made or decision taken by them.

Senior advocates Amarendra Sharan and Dayan Krishnan, appearing for Mr Asthana and Mr Kumar, told the court that the CVC had sent two communications in October this year to CBI asking it not to register an FIR or take action against the two officers without prior approval.

They argued that Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act makes it mandatory that prior approval has to be taken before lodging an FIR or initiating preliminary enquiry against a public servant.

“It was deliberately and knowingly given a go-bye,” they argued and urged the court to call for the files, including the case diaries, to ascertain the reason for this step.

Mr Kumar, earlier the investigating officer in a case involving meat exporter Moin Qureshi, was arrested on the allegations of forgery in recording the statement of Satish Babu Sana who had alleged to have paid bribe to get relief in the case. He made allegations of corruption, extortion, high handedness and serious malpractices against Mr Asthana.

The court asked CBI, as to how Sana — on whose complaint the FIR was lodged — met with another officer of the agency and went to a district court here to record his statement before a magistrate in connection with the allegations he had made, when the IO was Kumar.

Mr Banerjee said that Sana’s complaint was directly made to Mr Verma and proper procedure was followed by the agency before lodging an FIR.

He also said that section 17A of PC Act would not apply as the allegations against Asthana and Kumar were not in relation to discharge of their official duties.

However, this was opposed by senior advocate Sharan, who said that since Mr Asthana had already written to the Cabinet and the CVC against Mr Verma, the action taken against him was in relation to discharge of his official duties.