)
In the absence of any reply from the Congress and the BJP whether they would like to stake claim to form government in Delhi, the AAP Monday urged the Supreme Court to ask the Delhi Lt.governor to consider recommending the dissolution of the assembly.
As senior counsel Fali Nariman pushed for the Delhi assembly's dissolution as recommended by outgoing Chief Minister Avind Kejriwal as he resigned, a bench of Justice R.M.Lodha and Justice Kurian Joseph adjourned the hearing for two weeks as counsel for both the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) sought more time to file a response.
The apex court on March 7 had asked Congress and the BJP to respond whether they were willing to explore the possibility of forming an alternate government in Delhi.
The court adjourned the hearing for two weeks even though both the Congress and BJP wanted that the matter should be taken up hearing after results for the general elections were announced in May.
The court was urged to ask the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) to withdraw its petition and make a representation before the lt. governor for the reconsideration of his recommendation to place Delhi assembly under suspended animation.
The AAP has challenged the presidential proclamation of keeping the assembly in suspended animation despite the Kejriwal government's recommendation for dissolution.
Neither the BJP nor the Congress was inclined or in a position to form the government, thus no purpose would be served by keeping the assembly in a suspended animation, the petition said.
The decision not to dissolve the assembly, the AAP petition said, was taken despite the "categorical recommendation of the majority government of Delhi for dissolving the assembly".
It contended that the decision to keep the assembly under suspended animation was not only "arbitrary and illegal and in violation of the democratic rights of the citizens of Delhi but also malafide".
The motive behind not dissolving the assembly and holding fresh election was to allow the Congress-led central government to rule Delhi after the party had lost in the December 2013 elections, it alleged.
The petition has said contended that "both in the constitution and the Government of NCT Delhi Act, 1991, the power to order dissolution is not mere a discretionary power to be exercised at the whims of the executive government" and the decision not to dissolve the assembly would "thwart the election of the popular government and thus, deny the citizens of Delhi their democratic right to have an elected popular government".
