Mayor Shaili Oberoi on Friday said there will be no prejudice if re-poll is held to elect six members of the MCD standing committee, as the Delhi High Court reserved its verdict on the re-election challenge by BJP councillors. .
The High Court had on February 25 stayed the re-election on petitions filed by BJP corporators Kamaljit Sehrawat and Shikha Roy.
While senior advocates for the petitioners had earlier claimed that the mayor, who is also the returning officer, acted mala fidely to seek re-election after finding the election results “politically unpalatable”, senior advocates representing Oberoi underlined on Friday that the re-poll was necessary to ensure a free and fair election following the “uproar” in the House during the February 24 vote.
“There is no bias in re-polling. Please examine whether this would cause prejudice to them (the petitioners). They say if the vote is going to BJP then it will happen.”
“Was the system left? Was it such a gross injustice? He did not allow the recounting of votes. BJP councilors created ruckus. Mehra said, the ballot paper and calculation sheet were exchanged.
Senior advocate Rajasekhara Rao, appearing for the mayor, said no case was made out for the court’s interference and the authority was only ensuring that the process was as per law. He claimed that a “discrepancy in the count” was also mentioned in the note of the city secretary.
Justice Purushendra Kumar Kaurav reserved the decision after the arguments of the parties were completed.
Senior lawyers appearing for the two corporators had earlier alleged that the mayor wrongfully invalidated a vote and obstructed the election process.
The mayor had on February 24 announced fresh polling on February 27 at 11 am to elect six members of the Standing Committee of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD).
Senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for Sehrawat, had earlier said that invalidity of a vote must be supported before determining the quota that determines the winner, but in the present case, Mayor has invalidated a vote at a later stage. way invalidated.
Jethmalani was referring to the quota of votes allotted to each candidate by their respective parties to ensure their victory in the preferential voting.
Senior advocate Jayant Mehta, appearing for Roy, insisted that there is no enabling provision in law that empowers the mayor to hold re-election or recount. He also said that the mayor has no power to overrule the election process which should be allowed to end as the ballots were still secure.
The mayor of Delhi had earlier clarified that she had ordered “re-election” and not “re-election” in view of the ruckus in the House and to ensure free and fair elections.
His counsel had said that re-polling involves voting afresh, while re-election requires starting the election process afresh, from filing nominations. The conclusion is yet to be drawn.
The high court had on February 25 stayed the re-election of six members of the standing committee, which were to be held on February 27, saying the mayor had prima facie acted beyond his powers by ordering fresh elections.
The voting for the posts on February 22 at the MCD House had witnessed a ruckus with BJP and AAP members assaulting each other and throwing plastic bottles.
After fresh elections were held on 24 February, the House was again rocked by squabbles and AAP leader Mayor Oberoi later alleged that some members of the saffron party had “murderously attacked” him.
The petitioners have argued in the High Court that the Mayor ordered fresh elections on February 27 without announcing the result of the poll held on February 24, which violates Rule 51 of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Regulations. There is a violation, which involves the prescribed procedure.
Roy’s plea, filed through advocate Neeraj, said the polling was conducted peacefully and there was no occasion for the mayor to recall the election.
The High Court, while issuing notices to the RO, Government of Delhi, Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and MCD on two petitions, had observed that prima facie the decision to hold re-election in the present case was in violation of rules.
The high court had said that the governing norms do not reflect that the mayor has the power to declare the earlier election invalid and hold re-election without announcing the results of the previous poll held on February 24.
The mayor’s counsel had told the court that he was left with no option but to declare the earlier voting invalid as the process was vitiated by the unruly behavior of the members.
The counsel also alleged that the mayor did not get adequate cooperation from the member secretary and technical experts.
(This story has not been edited by News18 staff and is published from a syndicated news agency feed)