New Delhi, Sept. 19 -- The Supreme Court on Thursday sought the response of the Enforcement Directorate on a petition filed by real estate firm M3M director Roop Bansal seeking withdrawal of his petition from the Punjab and Haryana high court for quashing a criminal case for allegedly bribing a trial judge hearing his case. A bench of justices MM Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma issued notice to ED on Bansal's petition which challenged the August 27 decision of the high court refusing to withdraw the plea without hearing the ED. The high court directed ED to file a response and posted the matter for October 13. Approaching the top court against the August 27 interim order, Bansal told the court that the high court could not have sought ED response when the petition was sought to be withdrawn. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for Bansal said, "I am withdrawing unconditionally. I am not seeking any liberty. Why should the high court oppose and seek ED's reply to my withdrawal application." The bench remarked, "If somebody wants to withdraw, they won't be in a hurry unless they have reason to believe that the ED will file an affidavit that has something against you." The bench agreed to hear the matter in October. Singhvi urged the court to have it in first week of October prior to the next date of hearing before the high court. In the same matter pending before the high court, ED filed a response recently accusing the M3M director of filing repeated pleas for quashing the FIR against him and then withdrawing it from benches. Such "repetitive conduct" of the petitioner to file and later withdraw his plea amounts to bench-hunting and forum-shopping which cannot be accepted, ED stated in its response. Bench hunting or forum shopping refers to an unethical practice of litigants attempting to get their matters heard by a particular judge or bench to receive a favourable order....