Atishi ruled that the decision appointing the Delhi government's standing counsel on an interim basis was "invalid."

Atishi ruled that the decision appointing the Delhi government's standing counsel on an interim basis was "invalid."

The Principal Secretary (Law), acting at the LG's request, had also instructed Tripathi to refrain from representing the Delhi government in any court proceedings till further directives were given and the issue was resolved by the appropriate body.

Advocate Arun Panwar, a panel counsel representing the Delhi government, too received a similar order.

Declared "invalid" by Delhi Law Minister Atishi, the order from the Principal Secretary (Law) designating Santosh Kumar Tripathi as Standing Counsel (Civil) to represent the Delhi government in the Delhi High Court on an interim basis There was also a standing counsel appointment made.

In a February 15 order, the minister said, "Tripathi will continue to accommodate his position of Standing Counsel (Civil) in the Delhi High Court, GNCTD."

The Registrar General of the High Court has also received a copy of the order.

Lieutenant Governor V.K. Delhi was the nation's capital, authorities had said earlier this month.

"As an interim arrangement intended to ensure proper representation of GNCTD about Delhi before the Honorable High Court of Delhi, Shri Anupam Srivastava, is Additional Standing Counsel (Civil)," the Principal Secretary (Law) released an order later on February 14. Until further instructions, he is thus appointed Standing Counsel (Civil) in the High Court of Delhi, NCT of Delhi. In addition to handling the matters that Shri Santosh Kumar Tripathi is already handling, he will carry out all the responsibilities of Standing Counsel (Civil) of the Delhi High Court, GNCT, Delhi. Taking note of this, Atishi issued an order the following day declaring that the Principal Secretary (Law) had issued the order in accordance with the directives of the LG and the Chief Secretary, and that the appointment of the Standing Counsel is a transferred matter that is decided by the Delhi government's Council of Ministers.

It is not within the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble LG to remove or appoint the Standing Counsel (either permanently or temporarily). Additionally, the GNCTD Amendment Act 2023 does not apply to it, the ruling said.

"Without the Minister-in-charge's consent, the Principal Secretary (Law) issued the contested order, which lacks legal foundation and violates the GNCTD Act, Article 239AA of the Constitution, the Allocation of Business Rules, as well as the Transaction of Business Rules. Consequently, it concluded, "the impugned order is void ab initio and is hereby declared void."

The Principal Secretary (Law), acting at the LG's request, had also instructed Tripathi to refrain from representing the Delhi government in any court proceedings till further directives were given and the issue was resolved by the appropriate body.

Advocate Arun Panwar, a panel counsel representing the Delhi government, too received a similar order.

Raj Niwas authorities had earlier said that on August 18, the Excise Commissioner's request to submit the committee's report on the Delhi High Court's directives regarding conforming against non-conforming wards was forwarded to the court for the LG's permission. In 2022, I traveled.

Officials said that T. Thavah, the minister at the time, put an end to this.

"All of this occurred as a result of the government repeatedly declaring in the HC records that the report was still pending with the LG. Due to this, even though the file was not with the LG, the court asked the LG three times to swiftly clear the file for submission of the report.

According to an official, "On January 16 of this year, Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal approved the proposal as well as sent it to the LG after Atishi, a Delhi minister, approved it and sent it for further recommendation."

In a document sent to Kejriwal, Saxena claimed that the report's clearance file was received by the LG secretariat on January 16 of this year, one year and five months after it was first submitted on August 18, 2022, the official had said.

The case, according to Saxena's filing, is a somber assessment of "the manner in which the state government representation made false and misleading statements before the court," casting the Lieutenant Governor and his administration in a negative light in the eyes of the judge.