While hearing the Aam Aadmi Party government's plea for qaushing of the notification, the high court refused to stay the notification which has given the L-G primacy in the administrative mechanism of the capital.
The Centre on Friday received a shot in the arm from the Delhi High Court as well as from the Supreme court over the battle between Arvind Kejriwal led-government and the Union home ministry following the latter's May 21 notification clipping the state government's power with Lieutenant Governor as its points man.
While hearing the Aam Aadmi Party government's plea for qaushing of the notification, the high court refused to stay the notification which has given the L-G primacy in the administrative mechanism of the capital.
Earlier in the day, the apex court refused to stay the high court's single judge's observations in a recent order, which had termed as "suspect" the Centre's notification, saying they were "only tentative in nature" without expressing any opinion on its validity.
As per the notification, "Delhi government's Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) police station shall not take any cognisance of the offences against officers, employees and functionaries of the Central Government."
Justice Rajiv Shakdher of high court while issuing notice to the Centre on Kejriwal government's plea, sought home ministry to file the practice followed in the past on posting of officers in Delhi and other union territories.
"What was happening in the past? Was the earlier government (Delhi government) allowed to move officers? I want factual data as to how it has been carried in the past in Delhi and other Union Territories," the court said seeking Union of India's affidavit in this regard by August 11.
The court also said two orders of postings made by the city government to be placed before the L-G for deliberation and if he wants any clarification regarding the proposal then he may ask for it from council of ministers.
A battery of lawyers, including senior advocates Indira Jaising, HS Phoolka, Dayan Krishnan appeared for the city government in the case.
During the argument, Jaising challenged the "constitutional validity" of the notifications saying as a consequence the"day-to-day functioning and administration of the Delhi government is being hampered."
"The curbs on the elected government's powers were affecting work in crucial departments such as power, water and health was virtually coming to a standstill," she said.
Constitution gives "equal weightage" to the opinion of the chief minister or other ministers as to the opinion of the LG, she argued.
Defending the Centre, additional solicitor general Sanjay Jain, countered AAP government's contention saying that cadre controlling authority is the central government and it can post which officer to which union territory and in which department.
He added that when the officers are posted by the Central government how can they (Delhi government) "tinker" with that.
Meanwhile, dealing with the Centre's plea seeking stay on the high court's May 25 judgment which termed as suspect the notification, the Apex Court sought Delhi government's response in three weeks and decided to examine court order on the jurisdiction of NCT government's anti-corruption branch (ACB) to arrest policemen.
The vacation bench headed by Justice A K directed the high court to hear it independently AAP government's plea without being influenced by the observations made by the single judge on the notification.
"Insofar as observations made in para 66 are concerned, we find that they pertain to notification (of May 21) which was issued after the judgment was reserved by the high court. Neither the Union of India was party who had issued this notification nor was there any occasion to any hearing on the said notification.... We, therefore, clarify that the observations made therein were only tentative in nature without expressing any opinion on the validity of notification and it would be open to the High Court to deal with the said petition independently without being influenced by any observations made in para 66 of the order."
){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}
){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}