No coercive steps against MCD secy till May 3, says HC on summons issued by Delhi Assembly committee

The court was told that the matter pertains to section 3(3)(b)(i) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 wherein ten persons are to be nominated by the Lieutenant Governor to the MCD. Certain issues were raised pertaining to the said nominations by the Committee on Petitions and it issued a notice on February 16 directing the MCD commissioner to file a reply along with supporting documents.

A notice was issued by the committee on March 9 for the appearance of the secretary, Department of Urban Development, Commissioner MCD, Additional Commissioner Sunil Babu and Bhagwan Singh along with the relevant original/shadow files. On this date, the petitioner was stated to be on medical leave. Thereafter, another notice was issued by the committee on March 16 calling upon the petitioner to attend the hearing along with relevant files which the high court was told he attended and told the committee that the original records are either with the Office of the Lieutenant Governor or with the Delhi Government.

Thereafter the committee on the same day, March 16, wrote a letter to the Speaker, Delhi Legislative Assembly raising grievances against the petitioner’s conduct which was followed by the March 17 summoning notice by the committee which was under challenge.

When the matter was taken up on March 20, the high court was informed by senior advocate Sudhir Nandrajog for Delhi Government that sitting of the committee had been pushed to March 29 at the request of the petitioner. For the petitioner, senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy had contended that her client apprehended that the committee may take coercive action against him. Based on Nandrajog’s submission, the HC did not pass any interim order on March 20.

During the course of the hearing on March 23, Guruswamy argued, based on the DMC Act, that ten persons are nominated by the administrator, which as per Section 2(1) DMC Act is the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi. Thus, there is no irregularity in the appointment of the nominated persons who are also loosely referred to as ‘aldermen’, Guruswamy said.

On the other hand, Nandrajog argued that whether the L-G can nominate such alderman on his own or on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers of the Delhi Government is pending before the Supreme Court and the matter is listed on March 24. He further argued that the petitioner’s hearing has been adjourned to March 29 on his request due to his medical condition. On March 29, the Supreme Court issued notice to the L-G on the government’s plea against this appointment.

The high court, during the course of the hearing, took note of an application moved by the government challenging the maintainability of Bhagwan Singh’s plea questioning whether a writ petition can be entertained by the high court in respect of proceedings before the Committee of Privileges.

The high court thereafter issued notices on the petitioner’s plea as well as the government’s application granting both parties time to file their responses within weeks.