EC notice to 27 AAP MLAs on fresh plea over office of profit

The Election Commission today issued show cause notice to 27 AAP MLAs on a new petition seeking their disqualification for allegedly holding office of profit that may see the party defending another set of its lawmakers in a legal battle.
The commission also said that it would commence final arguments from November 15 on an earlier petition seeking disqualification of 21 AAP MLAs for holding the office of parliamentary secretaries -- alleged to be an office of profit.
In a notice issued to the 21 MLAs as well as the petitioner, EC said it would commence final arguments in the case on November 15 afternoon.

A fresh petition, filed in June and forwarded to the commission by Rashtrapati Bhawan last month, has sought cancellation of membership of 27 AAP MLAs over the office of profit issue.
The 27 MLAs include seven legislators against whom the EC is already considering a similar plea for holding the office of parliamentary secretaries.
The list also includes Delhi Assembly Speaker Ram Niwas Goel, his deputy Rakhi Birla, former deputy speaker Bandana Kumari and estranged AAP MLA and Swaraj Abhiyan leader Pankaj Pushkar.

The MLAs have been asked to file their response by November 11.
The petitioner has claimed that these MLAs hold posts of chairpersons of Rogi Kalyan Samitis (RKSs) of different government hospitals in Delhi without any sanctity of law.

Sources in the Delhi government said Rogi Kalyan Samitis were set up by the Sheila Dikshit government on October 5, 2009 while claiming the complaint will "fall flat" in due course of time.
On September 8, the high court set aside the appointment of 21 party MLAs as parliamentary secretaries. The court had said the order to appoint them as parliamentary secretaries was given without the concurrence of the Lt Governor.
AAP says since the decision to appoint the 21 MLAs as parliamentary secretaries has been set aside, they could not be disqualified for holding the office which they no longer enjoy.

But the petitioner says the court order will have no bearing on the case being heard by EC.