New Delhi: Delhi High Court on Wednesday granted time to the center to submit a reply to the petition that challenged the appointment of IPC officers Gujare-Cadre Rakesh Asthana as Police Commissioner Delhi.
The chairman of the Judge DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh, brought General General Tushar Mehta’s request to give more time to submit a response and register this problem to hear further on September 16.
The High Court, which has a notification issued September 1 to the center and asthana on the petition, issued a new notification to IPS officers because it was not presented to him because of the desire of paying process fees by the applicant.
The bench is hearing pills by Sadre Alam, a lawyer, opposes Asthana’s appointment along with the application of intervention by NGOs who have challenged the appointment before the Supreme Court.
Advocacy B S Bagga, which represents nature, apologizes for delays and convincing the court that the process costs will be stored during the day.
During a brief hearing, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the NGO – Center for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), reaffirming that nature applications are MALA FIDE and “Complete Copy Pasta” from the APEX court.
He said the court had to see if the Mala Fide petition must be entertained.
Mehta said he agreed with Bhushan and this copy-paste practice must be obsolete.
But he commented that if Bhushan made public plea before submitting it, nothing had to blame.
For this, Bhushan replies that most information is in the public domain.
The applicant has been searching for the arrangement of July 27 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs which appointed asthana as Commissioner of the Delhi Police and also orders that provide representatives between cadres and service extensions to him.
The application also searched for initiation of steps to appoint Commissioner of Delhi Police strictly in accordance with the direction issued by the Supreme Court before.
“The order stabbed (from MHA) which is clear and openly from the instructions conveyed by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Prakash Singh as the respondent no.2 (asthana) does not have a minimum six-month residual term; there is no upsc panel formed for The appointment of the Delhi Police Commissioner; and the criteria for having a two-year minimum term of being ignored, “said the application.
The previous center was evidenced before the “Intermeddlers” High Court could not be allowed to challenge the appointment of Asthana as Police Commissioner Delhi, said “This is not a mantar or Ramlila Maidan.” Mehta has been looking for time to respond to the petition in achievements and say the court must hear “affected officers” also before the order is forwarded.
Bhushan previously also raised the problem that the nature petition was a copy-paste of his delayed petition in front of the APEX court.
He has clarified that he did not intend to argue before this court when the NGO request was waiting before the Supreme Court.
The applicant’s advice has stated that the application is not a “copy-paste” product.
The petition claims the high-powered committee consisting of the main justice of India, the prime minister and opposition leader, in his meeting was held on May 24, 2021, rejected the efforts of the central government to appoint asthana as the CBI director based on the six-month rule placed by the Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Singh.
Asthana’s appointment must be set aside on the same principle, he said.
The petition with a similar prayer that has been submitted by CPIL before the Supreme Court has urged to direct the central government to produce July 27 issued, approving Inter-Cadre ASThana deputation from Gujarat cadres to Gujarat cadres.
This petition also urges The Apex Court to override the central command to extend the Asthana service period.
On August 25, the Supreme Court has asked the High Court to decide within two weeks, the petition was delayed before opposing the appointment of senior IPS officers as Delhi Police Commissioner.