In a huge setback for the Delhi Government, the Delhi HC held that the LG is the administrative head of National Capital Territory and the AAP Government's contention that he is bound to act on the advice of Council of Ministers was "without substance".
In a huge setback for the Arvind Kejriwal Government, the Delhi High Court held that the LG is the administrative head of National Capital Territory and the AAP Government's contention that he is bound to act on the advice of Council of Ministers was "without substance". The decision comes after months-long turf war between LG Najeeb Jung and Kejriwal for the reins of Delhi. A bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath dismissed AAP Government's plea challenging the Centre's May 21, 2015, notification giving absolute powers to LG in appointing bureaucrats in the national capital.
The court also quashed several notifications issued by Kejriwal after returning to power last year, saying they were illegal as they were issued without concurrence of LG. The bench, in its 194-page judgement, said the AAP Government's contention that the LG is bound to act on the aid and advice of Council of Ministers was "without substance and cannot be accepted".
After pronouncement of the verdict, the Delhi Government's senior standing counsel Rahul Mehra said they will immediately file a Special Leave Petition against the judgement in the Supreme Court.
Following is the chronology of events in the case related to the tussle between the Centre and AAP government regarding administration of the national capital, in which Delhi High Court held that the LG is the administrative head of National Capital Territory.
It started with lodging of an FIR in 2014 by the then Arvind Kejriwal regime against Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL), Mukesh Ambani and others, including two then Union ministers, accusing them of "fixing" gas prices.
Here’s the timeline:
*May 2, 2014: RIL moves HC for quashing of FIR and challenging a 1993 notification of the Centre giving power to Delhi government's Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) to probe union government employees.
*May 8: Centre moves HC against FIR against the minister contending that ACB has no powers or jurisdiction to probe.
*May 9: HC issues notice to Delhi government on the plea to quash FIR against the minister. HC allowed ACB to continue with its probe.
*May 20: HC asks Centre, RIL to cooperate with ACB probe.
*Aug 9: ACB tells HC that it has powers to lodge FIR in gas pricing case.
*Aug 19: ACB tells HC it cannot probe the gas pricing case against RIL and a former UPA minister as a July 23, 2014, notification of Centre has taken away its jurisdiction to investigate central government employees.
*Oct 16: Delhi government tells HC its ACB can prosecute RIL and ministers.
*Oct 28: HC gives time to Centre to clarify on ACB power.
*Dec 4 : RIL argues in HC that State probing Centre's decision on gas pricing is absurd.
*May 25, 2015: HC says ACB has jurisdiction to arrest policemen who come under Centre. It says the Centre's May 21 notification limiting ACB's powers was "suspect".
*May 26: PIL in HC against Centre's May 21 notification giving powers to LG to appoint bureaucrats in Delhi.
*May 28: Delhi government moves HC on Centre's notification on LG's powers. Centre moves SC against HC's May 25 order terming as "suspect" its notification.
*May 29: HC asks LG to consider Delhi government's proposals on shifting of nine bureaucrats from one post to another.
*Jun 10: HC refuses to stay MHA notification on ACB power.
*Jun 27: Delhi government moves HC to restrain LG appointee ACB chief M K Meena from entering anti-graft body's office.
*Jan 27, 2016: Union government tells HC that Delhi is under Centre's control and not full-fledged state.
*Apr 5: AAP government asks HC to refer to larger bench petitions on powers of LG on the governance of Delhi.
*Apr 6: Delhi government tells HC it was competent to set up a commission to probe allegations of corruption in awarding licence to conduct CNG fitness tests.
*Apr 19: AAP government withdraws from SC its plea seeking setting up of a larger bench in HC.
*May 24: HC reserves order on AAP government's plea for a stay on proceedings on the petitions arising out of its stand-off with LG over powers to appoint bureaucrats in the national capital and other issues.
*May 30: HC turns down AAP government's request to first decide its stay application.
*Jul 1: SC agrees to hear AAP government's plea seeking a direction that the HC be restrained from delivering judgement on issues including the scope of powers of the city government to exercise its authority in performing public functions.
*Jul 4: Justice J S Khehar of SC recuses from hearing AAP government plea on declaration of powers of Delhi as a state.
*Jul 5: Justice L Nageshwar Rao of SC also recuses from hearing Delhi government's plea.
*Jul 8: SC refuses to entertain Delhi government plea to first decide the preliminary issue as to whether it has the jurisdiction over disputes between the Centre and the state or is it "exclusively" triable by the apex court.
*Aug 4: HC says LG is administrative head of National Capital Territory and AAP government's contention that he is bound to act on the advice of Council of Ministers was "without substance".
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Arvind Kejriwal and Najeeb Jung")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}