 "Delhi Mayor, Shelly Oberoi")
Two BJP leaders on Thursday alleged in the Delhi High Court that Mayor Shelly Oberoi acted in a malafide manner when she called for re-election of six members of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) standing committee after finding the election results "politically unpalatable".
Before the bench Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, senior lawyers Mahesh Jethmalani and Jayant Mehta, appearing for the BJP two councillors, Kamaljeet Sehrawat and Shikha Roy, respectively, submitted that Oberoi invalidated one of the votes in a manner "unrecognised in law" and interdicted the election process.
On February 24, the Mayor had announced re-election for the standing committee on February 27 due to the chaos that rocked the MCD House during polling for the body earlier.
During a special hearing on the petitions filed by the councillors, the Delhi High Court had on February 25 put a stay on a notice issued by Oberoi.
Jethmalani stated that a vote's invalidity must be supported before determining the quota that decides the winner, however, in this instance, the Mayor incorrectly declared a vote invalid at a later stage.
"Once quota is fixed, how can anyone go back to validation? Quota is to see that after the first stage, who wins. If this is not malafide, what is? Because of unpalatable result, you try to subvert the election," he argued.
"This is res ipsa loquitur (things speak for themselves). This shows the motive of the Mayor. She acted ex post facto on unfavourable result. The Mayor acting malafidely is a good ground for interference of writ court," Jethmalani said.
More From This Section
Jethmalani was referring to the quota of votes each candidate was allotted by his/her party to ensure their victory in preferential voting.
Mehta also stressed that there is no legal provision that gives the Mayor the authority to ask for a re-election, a re-count, or to declare the election invalid.
He also said that there was no invalid vote at the relevant stage and "ex post facto scrutiny of ballot papers" cannot be permitted.
"There was no invalid vote and therefore the quota was fixed. Only when the result sheet was placed and when she found that it was not politically palatable, she revisited the votes," Mehta said.
He said the election process should be allowed to conclude as the ballot papers were still safe.
It is not her case that ballot papers were snatched away during any pandemonium, he said.
On May 5, Oberoi had objected the plea saying the decision was taken in the interest of free and fair polls.
Senior lawyer Rahul Mehra, representing Oberoi, said that she had ordered fresh 're-polls' rather than 're-election' due to the commotion in the House and that the court should not take the present petitions into consideration while the election process is still in progress.
"The returning officer (the Mayor) said everything stands compromised. There is complete commotion. Elections must be free and fair and they must also be seen to be free and fair and hence I (Mayor) am directing a re-poll."
Mehta had contended that once the election is completed, Oberoi has no discretion but to declare the results and she cannot sit over it if the results are not to her liking and has no power to order re-election.
Earlier, a ruckus was created after the Mayor had declared one vote invalid in the election to pick six members of the standing committee.
While staying the notice issued by Oberoi, the court had said that no purpose will be served by conducting fresh elections on February 27.
--IANS
spr/arm
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
