Lagatar24 Desk
New Delhi, Feb 25: The Delhi High Court stayed the newly-elected Mayor Shelly Oberoi’s notice for the re-election of the six members of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) standing committee during a special hearing on Saturday.
According to Justice Gaurang Kanth, it appears that the returning officer or mayor is holding new polls without disclosing the results of the elections held on February 24, which is against Regulation 51 of New Delhi Municipal Council (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Regulations, 1997.
“From a perusal of Regulation 51, it is nowhere reflected that the returning officer or mayor has the authority to declare an election of standing committee as null and void. It is not out of place to mention that admittedly, the counting of votes and further duty casted upon mayor as in declaring the result of elections held on February 24 shall culminate into the final result,” the court said.
The court ruled that holding a new election on February 27 will serve no purpose.
Two petitions filed by BJP leaders Kamaljeet Sehrawat and Shikha Roy contesting the Mayor’s notice from February 24 received notice from the court.
Counsel representing the petitioners stated that on February 24 the Mayor held elections for six members of the standing committee. On the same day, a notice for re-elections was nevertheless published without the results being announced.
It was decided to rely on Regulation 51, which outlines the process that must be followed for electing standing committee members.
The responses, on the other hand, stated that the election has not yet reached its conclusion. It was argued that the Mayor did not receive sufficient cooperation from the member secretary and technical expert and that the Mayor’s message implied that the procedure had been restarted due to the “unruly behaviour of members.”
The mayor was said to have had no choice but to declare the elections held on February 24 to be invalid. The court granted the respondents two weeks to submit a reply affidavit while staying the contested notice.
Mahesh Jethmalani, a senior attorney, represented the petitioners. The respondents were represented by Senior Advocates Dayan Krishnan and Rahul Mehra.
