The Supreme Court had recently asked the Delhi high court to decide within two weeks the petition filed before it challenging the appointment of Rakesh Asthana as Delhi Police commissioner.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday agreed to hear the Intervention Application (IA) of Centre of Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) through Advocate Prashant Bhushan along with an ongoing petition challenging Rakesh Asthana’s appointment as police commissioner.
The Bench of Justice DN Patel and Jyoti Singh on Tuesday after noting down the submission of Adv Prashant Bhushan deferred the matter for Wednesday. The Supreme Court had recently asked the Delhi high court to decide within two weeks the petition filed before it challenging the appointment of Rakesh Asthana as Delhi Police commissioner.
Bhushan on Tuesday alleged that the ongoing petition is clear a copy-paste of his petition filed by him at the Supreme Court.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma and Advocate Amit Mahajan appearing for the central government had earlier opposed the ongoing petition, raising the issue of locus standi of the petitioner.
The ongoing plea was filed by one Sadre Alam through Advocate BS Bagga said that he has filed the petition in public interest invoking the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order issued by the central government appointing Rakesh Asthana, IPS as the Commissioner of Police, Delhi and for quashing the order/communication dated July 27, 2021, of the ACC granting inter-cadre deputation and extension of service.
The petition also sought further direction to initiate fresh steps for appointing the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, strictly in accordance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court of India. The petitioner said that the IPS officer was due to retire on his superannuation that is July 31, 2021, but was granted an inter- cadre transfer I deputation to Respondent No.2 from his parent cadre of Gujarat to the AGMUT cadre (cadre for Arunachal Pradesh, Goa Mizoram other Union Territories including Delhi).
“Because impugned orders violate a number of statutory rules and violate the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Prakash Singh vs Union of India regarding the eligibility, procedure for appointment and tenure of police chiefs,” the petition said.
“Because the post of Commissioner of Police in Delhi is akin to the post of Director General of Police (DGP) of a State and he is the head of police force for the NCT of Delhi and therefore, the directions concerning the appointment to the post of DGP passed by the Supreme Court of India in Prakash Singh case (supra) had to be followed by the central government while making the impugned appointment,” it added.