STATE TIMES NEWS
JAMMU: Jammu and Kashmir High Court on Saturday stayed the order with regard to holding of elections to the post of Chairman. Chief Executive Councillor of Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council (LAHDC), Kargil.
The directions came after hearing the petition, filed by Mohd. Haneefa Jan, presently Chairman LAHDC Kargil and others, seeking stay the operation of the impugned SRO 228 dated 5th of July, 2016 and order dated 8th of July ,2016 , directing conduct of the elections to the post of Chairman / Chief Executive Councillor of LAHDC, Kargil and also seeking direction for restraining the respondent from interfering or seizing the powers of the Chairman of the Council in any manner whatsoever; till the final disposal of the writ petition.
Justice Tashi Rabstan of J&K High Court Jammu Wing, after hearing Advocate Pranav Kohli with Advocates Farhan Mirza and Rahul Sharma for the petitioners, issued notice and directed that subject to objections from other sides and till next date of hearing, order impugned dated July 8, 2016, seeking conduct the elections to the post of Chairman / Chief Executive Councillor of LAHDC, Kargil, shall remain stayed.
During the course of hearing, Adv Pranav Kohli submitted that Dy. Commissioner/ Chief Executive Officer perhaps wanted to usurp the powers of the Council through its Chairman and consequently replied to letter dated 1st July 2016 vide reply bearing No. DC-K/LS/340/2016-17 dated 04th July, 2016 and admitted that the authority of the Chairman has not been questioned in terms of Section 27(2) of Act of 1997 and further admitted that pursuant to withdrawal of the support, the Dy. Commissioner/ Chief Executive has already approached the Government in order to proving majority on the floor of the Council vide letter dated 30.06.2016. The Dy. Commissioner/ Chief Executive also mentioned that appropriate orders in terms of Rule 94 and 95 of LAHDC Rules 1995 were awaited. “It appears that the Dy. Commissioner/ Chief Executive Officer has misunderstood the provisions of Rule 94 and 95”, the counsel pleaded.
“It is further submitted that the Dy. Commissioner/ Chief Executive Officer in its circular dated 30th June 2016 while making request for appropriate orders from competent authority has erred in law in referring the matter to government. At the first instance, the matter will be referred to Government only if the post of chairman has fallen vacant on account of death, resignation, removal or otherwise. Be that as it may, the Dy. Commissioner/ Chief Executive Officer itself mentioned for providing opportunity/ conducting Floor Test in order to prove majority in the Council. The order dated 08.07.2016 is thus, without jurisdiction and in total disregard / in violation of law as also the circular dated 30.06.2016 issued by the Dy. Commissioner/ Chief Executive Officer and deserves to be set aside alongwith SRO 228/2016 dated 5th July 2016 which is without jurisdiction suffers from judicial impropriety and contrary to the provisions of LAHDC, act of 1997 and rules of 1995”, he maintained.
