The memorandum against the appointment of Rahul Mehra as senior standing counsel for the city government is being considered by the Lieutenant Governor (LG), the Delhi High Court was told today.
“The file pertaining to the issue raised in the petition is pending for consideration before the LG, who will take his decision soon,” Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva was informed.
The counsel for the LG office also informed the court that after the judgement of the high court making it clear that the LG is the administrative head of the Union Territory of Delhi, the file seeking approval of the city government’s decision to appoint Mehra as senior standing counsel (civil) is being examined by LG Anil Baijal.
The LG office response came in the backdrop of the plea by advocate Chetan Dutt, who sought setting aside and quashing of the appointment of Mehra from the post.
The plea has termed the appointment as “illegal” on the ground that the post of senior standing counsel “doesn’t exist in the eyes of the law”.
Taking note of the submissions made on behalf of the LG
office, Justice Sachdeva said, “When the authority concerned (LG) is already acting upon the matter, why should the court intervene.
“The courts can only intervene when the authorities are not acting,” the judge said.
The matter was listed for further hearing on March 23 by when the LG is expected to take his decision on the issue.
The petition, which sought quashing of the notification issued by the Delhi government with regard to the appointment of Mehra and other panel counsel of the Delhi government, has said that it was “bad in law as the same is in violation of the Constitution of India”.
“The Department of Law, Justice and Legislative Affairs issued a notification appointing Rahul Mehra as senior standing counsel for all matters of Delhi….
“No advertisement for the post, no terms and conditions for appointment, no criteria, no eligibility were made. No sanction was obtained from the LG of the National Capital Territory of Delhi,” the petition has said.
It has said that judicial review of the notification was mandatory and required in law.
