SDMC commissioner fails to appear before Delhi Assembly

South MCD Commissioner Piyush Goel today failed to appear for the second time before the Question and Reference Committee of Delhi Assembly which is looking into MLA Saurabh Bharadwaj's complaint that the civic body was stalling development works carried out through MLA-LAD fund.

Goel pleaded that he had to attend another meeting with Union Urban Development Minister Venkaiah Naidu that's why he was unable to appear before the committee's meeting and instead, he appointed his counsel to represent him in the meeting.

Last week, the committee had recommended contempt proceeding against Goel and Principal Secretary (Urban Development) for not having appeared before it.
 

The hearing of Question and Reference Committee was today postponed once again for Tuesday as its members insisted that the SDMC Commissioner needs to appear in person before them.

Today, on behalf of Principal Secretary (Urban Development) Janak Diggal, department's senior officers appeared before the committee asking for early hearing as they would attend the meeting with the Union Minister. The Committee, however, granted permission in this regard.

South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) officials told the Committee that the notice of the meeting with the UD minister was sent to the SDMC office on Friday evening and the commissioner's office received it on Monday morning.

Since the time would have clashed, the commissioner, under rule 173, has appointed a counsel to present him which committee rejected, citing that rule 173 is dependent on the committee permitting such representation, the counsel was asked to leave the meeting.

The second issue raised by SDMC officials was the presence of complainant Sourabh Bhardwaj in the committee.

Responding to the issue, Assembly Secretariat said that this matter is the sole prerogative of the committee.

Meanwhile, Standing Committee (SDMC) Chairman Shailender Singh Monti stated that the civic body's officers again emphasized on the rule number 161 which prohibits the committee to allow the complainant to conduct the proceedings of the committee.

"The SDMC was represented before the committee by the Additional Commissioner, CLO, and a Counsel authorized by the corporation. However, the committee did not allow the authorized counsel to represent SDMC Commissioner," Monti said.