The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition seeking to vacate the stay granted to the Aam Aadmi Party government on the implementation of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s announcement and directions to formulate a policy, saying Was that if a poor tenant was unable to pay rent during the COVID-19 pandemic, the state would pay it. A bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramaniam Prasad said the petitioner tenant had already challenged the stay order before the Supreme Court which had quashed it on February 28. This Court finds no reason to vacate the adjournment granted on September 27. , 2021, the bench said.
The court also rejected the tenant’s claim that the stay order was passed ex-parte and held that the presence of counsel was marked in the order. “When the counsel for the tenant urged the court to grant some interim protection,” the bench said, “you want us to pass an order against all the landlords of Delhi.”
The lawyer said that he was only asking to frame a policy in this regard. To this the bench said, “Can we compel them to make a policy. Hundred things have been said in the election manifesto, can we force them to do so? The Delhi government’s counsel informed the court that the same tenant had approached the Supreme Court against the stay order passed by the High Court and this fact was concealed from the court.
The bench said that it is unfortunate that the petitioners, even after filing a similar petition in the Supreme Court, filed an application in the High Court for removal of the stay. The top court, while dismissing the plea on February 28, had studied Kejriwal’s speech and said there would be no opposition to the commitment on the basis of the speech. There should be some policy, a notification has to be issued in this regard.
Promissory estoppel is a principle in contract law that prohibits a person from going back on a promise, even if no legal contract exists. The top court had said that it was a negotiating order passed by the Delhi High Court and hence it was not interfering in it. On September 27 last year, the High Court issued notice on the Delhi government’s appeal against the order passed by the single judge, which also held that the chief minister’s promise to citizens was enforceable.
The notice was issued to the petitioners – daily wage earners and workers – on whose plea the order was passed by a single judge which has been challenged by the Delhi government. The bench had said that if the stay order is not passed, the appellant will suffer irreparable loss. The counsel for the Delhi government had claimed that in the backdrop of the outbreak of the pandemic, an appeal was made by the Chief Minister to the public at large not to force the tenants to pay rent. However, it was found to be a promise made by the Single Judge. Advocates representing the petitioners – daily wage earners and employees who had sought enforcement of the promise before a single judge, had opposed any order of stay and stated that they had no means to pay the rent amount. instrument is not.
In its appeal, the Delhi Government has submitted that the Government is expected to invoke a short sentence from the press conference organized by the Chief Minister, devoid of its context and in the face of development which shows that the situation for which assurance was never given. Was actually happened, completely uneven. The facts and circumstances surrounding the mutilated statement of the Chief Minister on March 29, 2020 show that the manner in which the petitioners have allegedly acted is not justified, as there is no indiscriminate and unconditional demand for payment of rent by GNCTD. Assurance not given. The lockdown was done by them, the petition said. On July 22, 2021, Justice Pratibha M Singh ruled that a chief minister’s promise to citizens was enforceable and directed the AAP government to take a decision on Arvind Kejriwal’s announcement within six weeks that the state was turning towards a poor tenant. who is unable to do so. So because of COVID19. After this two more weeks were given.
The judge had said that the lack of decision making or indecision was contrary to law, against the backdrop of commitment made by the chief minister. A statement made in a deliberately organized press conference in the backdrop of the announced lockdown due to pandemic and mass exodus of migrant laborers cannot be overlooked. The single judge had said that for proper governance, the government has to decide on the assurance given by the chief minister and inaction on that cannot be the answer.
The judge had observed that in the present case, the assurance was not a political promise as sought to be campaigned as it was not made as part of an election rally but was a statement made by the Chief Minister of Delhi.
read all breaking news, today’s fresh newswatch top videos And live TV Here.