Special CBI Judge Anju Bajaj Chandna today heard arguments by complainant V M Singh, who has filed the protest petition, and fixed the matter for December one for further proceedings.
The complainant contended that the court should not accept CBI's closure report as it has been wrongly filed.
The court had in 2008 refused to accept the closure report filed by the probe agency and asked CBI to further investigate the matter.
An FIR was lodged by CBI in 2006 against Maneka Gandhi, now the Women and Child Development Minister, Dr F U Siddiqui, former secretary of Maulana Azad Education Foundation (MAEF) and Dr Vijay Sharma, former Managing Trustee of Gandhi Rural Welfare Trust (GRWT).
Also Read
It had alleged that Gandhi, in conspiracy with Siddiqui, had sanctioned a grant of Rs 50 lakh to GRWT from MAEF in an irregular manner to construct a nursing college building at Pilibhit in Uttar Pradesh and caused undue favour to Sharma.
It had alleged that Rampal had purchased two jeeps which had cost much less than the approved models and failed to get them certified by the chief medical officer. The vehicles were also used for personal work by the managing trustee.
The agency had again filed a closure report, saying "during the course of further investigation, the allegations levelled against Maneka Gandhi, Dr F U Siddiqui and Dr Vijay Sharma could not be substantiated."
In its closure report, CBI said the trust had purchased
two jeeps with ambulance fixtures on September 15, 2003 for Rs 9,85,008, while the balance amount was returned to the government exchequer as per the terms of sanction.
"As such no financial irregularity could be pointed out in the matter of purchase of ambulances and the change in vehicle model was found to be on justified grounds," it said.
"Since production of this model of vehicle was temporarily stopped, the company offered to sell Mahindra DI ambulance which according to the company was rugged, reliable and easily serviceable in semi-urban and rural areas," the agency said.
Regarding sanction of funds, CBI said during further probe, it had come on record that since the sanction was subject to submission of documents with regard to land and site plan, the amount was "released only after completion of the documentary formalities."