Delkhi Speaker seeks to withdraw letter to HC's Acting CJ

Delhi Assembly Speaker Ram Niwas Goel today told the Delhi High Court that he wished to withdraw his recent letter written to the acting chief justice alleging that a division bench of the court had passed orders against the legislature without ascertaining facts.
As the submission was made orally by the counsel for the speaker, the court asked him to give a written request for withdrawing the three-page letter, which is now being heard as a petition.
The plea was opposed by the counsel for Delhi Chief Secretary M M Kutty and PWD principal secretary Ashwani Kumar, who said the letter was written by the Speaker and only he has the authority to withdraw it and not any official.

The lawyer also questioned the logic behind withdrawing the letter now as its contents were already made available to the media.
A bench of Justice G S Sistani and V Kameshwar Rao, which orally observed that if the letter was withdrawn the issue ends, asked the Speaker's lawyer Satyakam to seek the instruction in writing and listed the matter for November 8.
According to sources, the Speaker has not named the two officials in the letter. But they said that the reference in the letter is to the recent petitions in the high court by Kumar and Kutty.

Kumar approached the court against "breach of privilege" proceedings initiated by the assembly's privilege committee and got a stay from the court. The proceedings were initiated against Kumar for allegedly misleading a house panel on desilting of drains in the city.

Kutty has also got a stay from the high court on a show- cause notice issued by the assembly's 'Question and Reference Committee' for allegedly not following its directive to incorporate the adverse remarks in the annual confidential report of a bureaucrat.
During the day's hearing in the high court, the Speaker's advocate submitted that the letter of October 27 was between two constitutional authorities and should be treated as "unconditionally withdrawn".
After seeking instructions from assembly officials who were present in the court, the counsel said he would bring the request in writing on November 8.
Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, who was representing Kutty and Kumar, contended that the speaker's counsel may not be authorised to say that he wanted to withdraw it.

He also argued that in each of the cases filed by the two bureaucrats, all the parties were present and heard by the court after which any order was passed.
The submission was made in the backdrop of the Speaker's letter which claimed that in two of three matters heard by a high court division bench, the Delhi assembly was not even served notice and they were not able to represent their position to the bench.
In the third case, the letter claimed, notice was served an hour before the matter was mentioned and heard.