New Delhi, May 12 (IANS) Delhi Mayor Shelly Oberoi on Friday submitted before the Delhi High Court that no prejudice will be caused if polling is held again to elect the six members of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi’s (MCD) standing committee.
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 the notice issued by Oberoi.
Two petitioners, Kamaljeet Sehrawat and Shikha Roy, both BJP councillors, had alleged in the high court on Thursday that Oberoi acted in a malafide manner when she called for re-election after finding the election results “politically unpalatable”.
Appearing for Oberoi, who is also a returning officer (RO), senior advocate Rahul Mehra on Friday underscored that the re-polling was essential to ensure free and fair elections following the “ruckus” in the House during the polls held on February 24.
“There is no prejudice in re-polling. Please test if it will cause prejudice to them (petitioners),” the counsel said.
“What was the mechanism left? Was it so blatantly unfair? They did not allow re-counting. The BJP councillors created a ruckus. Ballot papers and calculation sheets exchanged hands,” Mehra added.
Another senior advocate appearing for Oberoi, Rajshekhar Rao, said that no case for court’s interference was made out and the authority was only ensuring that the process is done as per the law.
He claimed that even the note of the Municipal Secretary noted “discrepancy in counting”.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav reserved his order after conclusion of the submissions by the parties.
On Thursday, senior lawyers Mahesh Jethmalani and Jayant Mehta, appearing for the Sehrawat and Roy, respectively, had submitted that the returning officer invalidated one of the votes in a manner “unrecognised in law” and interdicted the election process.
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 the 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.
Mehra 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.
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
