HC declines to interfere with order staying notice to MCDs by Committee on Municipalities

The Delhi High Court on Thursday declined to interfere with a single judge order putting on hold the operation of a notice issued by a committee, constituted by the Speaker of the Delhi Legislative Assembly, seeking certain financial information from municipal corporations.

A bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh said it was not going to interfere with the December 23, 2020 order of the single judge as it was only an interim direction and disposed of the appeal filed by the Deputy Secretary (Committees) against the same.

The bench further said that the interim order was only in operation till February 9, 2021, the next date of hearing before the single judge, and on that date, the appellant here can raise their contentions before the single judge.

The court said that the contentions in the appeal can be raised before the single judge who can decide the same by looking at the provisions of law and facts of the matter.

The bench said if it decides the appeal, then it would result in the petition before the single judge being decided in advance.

The single judge order had come on a petition moved by the Chairman of the Standing Committee of the South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) challenging a December 4, 2020 notice issued by the Committee on Municipalities calling for certain information regarding the accounts of the three corporations.

The single judge had observed that ''a perusal of the documents sought for by the Committee in the impugned notice would, prima facie, reflect their intent to exercise the powers of superintendence over the accounts of the MCDs''.

The single judge in the December 23, 2020 order had also said that superintendence over accounts of MCDs is a power and duty conferred upon the corporations Standing Committee and the notice seeking information prima facie appears to be ''infringing upon the separation of powers and self-governance'' provided under the Constitution.

In its appeal challenging the December 23, 2020 order, the Deputy Secretary (Committees) had contended before the division bench on Thursday that the single judge did not have the power or the jurisdiction to interfere with a notice issued by a committee constituted by a legislative assembly.

It had contended that this would amount to interference with the legislative process which was not permitted under the law.

The appellant had also contended that as a result of the single judge's decision, a legislative committee was ''sitting idle''.

The bench, however, said it was not going to accept the contentions nor interfere with the order under challenge as it was only an interim decision, and the next date of hearing before the single judge was February 9.