"There is a motive behind this plea, Jal Board not even made a party". Delhi Finance Secretary tells SC in AAP govt's petition for release of funds

Read Time: 04 minutes

Synopsis

Earlier, the bench had refrained from issuing notice to the Delhi Lieutenant Governor after taking note of the submission that the LG has no role in the disbursal of funds by the finance department of the Delhi government

The Supreme Court has directed to implead Delhi Jal Board (DJB) as a party in the plea filed by Aam Aadmi Party government seeking release of Jal Boards' funds amounting to INR 3,000 crores.

A CJI DY Chandrachud led bench has issued notice to DJB today after it was informed by the Delhi Finance Secretary that AAP had not even made the Board a party in the petition filed by it, while it was seeking release of funds allocated to the Board.

"They have not even made the DJB a party..the minister is filing a case against his own secretary..", Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani told the bench.

"We will issue a notice to DJB and find out what is due to them", said the CJI.

Jethmalani added that the plea had been filed with a motive which he would be bringing to the court's attention.

On April 1st, Court had issued notice to the Principal Secretary (Finance). 

On March 20, 2024, Senior Advocate AM Singhvi had mentioned the issue before a Chief Justice of India led bench seeking an urgent hearing.

"The matter is listed for 1st April, 3000 crores will lapse on March 31...please list on Friday.", Singhvi had told the bench also comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.

Noting that the matter was already listed for April 1, 2024, the CJI had said, "We will hear on April 1st when it is listed..if we hold something, it can be reversed..no problem..".

The Delhi Jal Board Contractors’ Welfare Association had also threatened the government earlier to stop working, if their dues are not cleared.

AAP government had earmarked INR 4,839.5 crore for the Jal Board, out of which only Rs 1,598 crore was released in May last years as the first instalment, and the subsequent instalments were not released.

Case Title: GNCTD vs. LG, Delhi