Aastha Thakur
Published on: 28 November 2022 at 20:28 IST
The Delhi High Court directed Centre and the Lieutenant Governor to submit their responses against the plea fied by the state think-tank Dialogue and Development Commission of Delhi (DDCD) vice chairman Jasmine Shah challenging an order restraining him from discharging his duties and sealing his office.
The matter was dealt by Justice Prathiba M Singh asked the LG, Director (Planning) of the Delhi government, SDM of Civil Lines and the Chairperson of DDCD to file their counter affidavits responding to the plea.
“Without a counter affidavit, how will I deal with the allegations? You file your responses,”
The LG urged Kejriwal to terminate Shah from his role on November 17, delivered through Director (Planning) Vijendra Singh Rawat. Shah was accused of abusing his position for political purposes. Shah has been prohibited by the LG from using his office space and the personnel and resources that were allotted to him have also been withdrawn.
The petition claims that Shah’s office has been sealed and that all benefits and privileges granted to him as vice-chairperson have been withdrawn.
Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain, who appeared for the LG, submitted, “yes sitting in his office, where we are paying him salary he is getting salary of 1 lakh… 30 thousand rupee allowance…”
Earlier the counsel argued that “larger issues” are involved in the case and sought time to respond to the petition. Jain submitted that the Deputy Chief Minister on Saturday last week has made “some notings on the file” and that matter is now again before the LG. “Your lordship may keep the matter tomorrow or day after so that the LG can place his noting,” he submitted.
Shah claims in his appeal that the decisions made against him are a “gross abuse of power and process”, “wholly without any merit, an instance of colourable exercise of authority, illegal, prima facie malafide, and patently lacking in jurisdiction.”
He has also challenged the orders regarding to lock his office and withdrew all facilities and privileges. The sealing exercise was undertaken by the Planning Department of the Delhi government.
Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar, representing Shah, earlier submitted that there is no question of reinstatement because the LG has recognised that he has no power to remove him.
Nayar argued that the orders against him “suffer from a patent want of jurisdiction” because there were no directives from the Delhi cabinet and the chief minister, the appropriate authorities. It is also said that the accusation against him makes no claims of corruption or the misappropriation of public funds; rather, the only concern was that he had expressed his political opinion during a few televised debates.
“The sole object and purpose of the impugned orders is to victimise the petitioner for expressing his political views in television debates which were not to the liking of the complainant, Parvesh Sahib Singh Verma, Member of Parliament of the BJP from West Delhi, and respondent No.3 (LG) who acted on a complaint made by the former with alacrity, in a pre-meditated manner,” the petition has said.
According to the plea submitted, the vice chairperson of the DDCD is only appointed as an honorary member to advise the government on public policy reform and cannot be considered as a permanent member of the Executive, Civil Service, or Bureaucracy of the State. Additionally, the conditions of his employment do not prohibit him from associating with political parties or expressing political opinions.
Further it stated that, “The impugned order dated November 17, 2022 also proceeds on the misconception that the petitioner is a spokesperson of the AAP. In fact, the petitioner has not been appointed as the spokesperson of the AAP”
Shah was behind the Delhi government’s ambitious electric vehicle policy and is the vice chairman of the think-tank involved in drawing blueprints of various initiatives of the city government, including its food truck policy, electronic city, and shopping festival, among others.
On December 13, the high court scheduled a next hearing in the case.