Who will represent LG in Lokayukta appointment case?

Delhi High Court today witnessed a controversy over who will represent the Lt Governor in a case relating to the appointment of Lokayukta, as counsels for both the Centre and the AAP government claimed they were authorised to represent Najeeb Jung.
While a Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) showed to Justice V P Vaish a letter from Jung's office authorising him to represent the LG, an additional standing counsel for Delhi government contended that as per a government notification, he was the one authorised.
The controversy arose when CGSC Kirtiman Singh said he was representing the Centre and the LG and had no objection in allowing the intervention application of BJP leader Vijender Gupta in the matter.

Gupta had alleged that despite being the Leader of Opposition in Delhi assembly, he was not consulted on the appointment of the Lokayukta by the AAP government, which told the court today that it was finalising names for appointment to the post.
As soon as Kirtiman Singh made his point, Delhi government's additional standing counsel Gautam Narayan opposed the intervention application saying Gupta was not a necessary party. Narayan too claimed he was authorised to represent the LG.
He also said he was not aware of any notification by which Singh has been appointed to represent the LG and added that as per a city government notification, Jung was to represented by the AAP government counsel.

Singh opposed Narayan's contention saying in view of the LG's recent letter blaming Delhi government for delaying the appointment of Lokayukta, there was bound to be conflict of interest between Jung and AAP government.

As the issue could not be resolved, the court directed the cousels of both the Centre and the Delhi government to place on record the notifications by which they have been authorised to represent the LG and listed the matter for further hearing on September 17.
The court said it will decide Vijender Gupta's plea also on that date.
Meanwhile, Delhi government in an affidavit told the court that all statutory authorities would be consulted in compliance of the statutory mandate.