(1.) Caveat has been entered by the respondents represented by Mr. B. N. Lokur with Mr. M. Chandrasekharan.
(2.) . This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks theissue of a writ or direction restraining the Union of India and theLieutenant Governor of Delhi from dissolving the Metropolitan Council, which has been constituted under the Delhi Administration Act,1966. Section II of the said Act, which gives this power, is asfollows :
(3.) . The main grounds stated in the petition and also orally byMr. Kapur for obtaining the relief prayed for are as follows :(1) That respondent No. 2, Mr. Jagmohan, was not properlyappointed as the Administrator of the Union Territoryof Delhi and, therefore, he could not exercise the powerunder section II of the Delhi Administration Act ; and(2) That respondent No. 2 with the approval of the Presidentof India is intending to dissolve the Metropolitan Councilunder section II of the Act bona fide.The facts constituting the alleged bona fides are given in paragraphs22, 23 and 25, which are as below :"22. That the Rajya Sabha Member has to be elected by theMembers of Metropolitan Council, the Congress (1) Government cannot in any case win this Rajya Sabha seatin, the present circumstances, as the non-Congress (1) i.e.Janata Government is ruling in Delhi.23. That the Congress (1) Government expected that there willbe crossing over and defection in large scale in Delhi ashas been in the case of Haryana, Goa, etc. and there wouldnot arise any need of dissolution, but when it has failedto get defection, it has decided to dissolve the Metropolitan Council otherwise, it would have dissolved with theother 9 State Assemblies.25. It is not out of place to mention here that Shri Jigmohan,Lt. Governor was removed from the post by the JantaGovernment and with the coming in power of the Congress(1) Government, he has been reappointed. The submission of the report for approval of the President is the revengeful action and bona fide intention."