Gandhinagar, June 27 (IANS) The Gujarat High Court Monday denied relief to Indian Police Service (IPS) officer Satish Verma for the delayed arrests in the Porbandar-Gosabara RDX landing case but suggested a CBI inquiry if needed.

 
 A bench comprising Chief Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Justice J.B. Pardiwala, however, upon Verma's counsel, Mihir Joshi's submissions suggested that there may be an inquiry conducted by Central Bureau of Investigation if it was necessary for independent investigation.
 
 The judges disagreed with Joshi's submissions of "state's malice against Verma" and said the state is presumed to have no malice against anyone unless it is shown.
 
 Verma, who is a member of the high court-appointed special investigation team in the  Ishrat Jahan alleged staged shootout case, is facing government ire for showing negligence in the RDX case.
 
 The counsel contended that Verma is being targeted by the state government as he acted tough in the Ishrat probe and insisted on filing an FIR against the policemen who were part of the staged shootout team.
 
 On April 28, the bench, which was hearing the RDX landing case, in its order allowed the state government to act upon a report prepared by Pramod Kumar, Additional Director General of Police (Administration) regarding the role of IPS officers Satish Verma and Atul Karval, and police inspector Sukhdevsinh Zala, in accordance with the law.
 
 Verma, Karval and Zala are accused of letting off Sattar Maulana, a key accused of the Gosabara RDX landing case, when they were posted at Porbandar in 1993. A part of the RDX consignment landed at Gosabara near Porbandar was used in the Mumbai serial blasts.
 
 The government entrusted the task to senior IPS officer Pramod Kumar following a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Yatin Oza, senior counsel in high court, seeking  action against the officers as they acted against national security. Oza is a former BJP legislator.
 
 Verma has been blaming the government for changing its stand on the issue. The bench kept the matter for June 30, when the review application is slated to come up.
 
 The court now will hear both the matters together.