The Supreme Court on Friday said it would hear in October the petition filed by the CBI seeking a clarification on the nature of sanction needed from a state government to probe any offence committed within its territory.

The probe agency has said that it has challenged only the limited issue of consent in the high court verdict.

The high court had said that the issue regarding consent from the state government to probe offences committed there will be adjudicated by the trial court in the case.

The matter came up for hearing on Friday before a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and justices Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna which said, "List the matter for final disposal in the month of October 2019".

Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Harin Raval along with advocate D K Thakur appeared for the former chief minister.

In its plea, the CBI has said that section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946 does not talk about the nature of consent and, therefore, it needs a clarification on the issue as it would affect its power to investigate offences which are committed in the states.

Section 6 of DSPE Act deals with the consent of a state government for exercising of powers and jurisdiction by CBI officials.

The CBI had contended before the high court that there was a general consent granted by Himachal Pradesh government on August 24, 1990 to probe offences of central government employees in the territory of the state.

Virbhadra Singh, on the other hand, had contended in the high court that the consent order does not take within its scope a central minister, who served as a public servant in Delhi under the central government.

He had said that he was not an official "of a central government department or any other central institution located in the territory of Himachal Pradesh".

The high court had said, "The issue whether such consent had been obtained generally, or specifically, as well as the issue as to what is the effect of the investigation conducted, if any, without obtaining the prior consent of the government of Himachal Pradesh, cannot be determined in the present proceedings and would fall for consideration, if and when a charge sheet is filed before the special judge".

In the same order, the high court had refused to quash the disproportionate assets case filed by the CBI against Singh and others, saying there was no basis to claim that the FIR was the result of any "political vendetta".

It had vacated the Himachal Pradesh High Court's October 1, 2015 interim order restraining the CBI from arresting, interrogating or filing a charge sheet in the case without the court's permission.

It had also turned down the question framed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court on whether the permission of the Speaker of state assembly was mandatory before registration of an FIR.

(This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)