Office of profit case: AAP says EC notice being ‘misinterpreted’, likely to challenge order
On Saturday morning, the AAP has received notice from the Electoral Commission that it ruled that they would continue to hear allegations against the 21 members of the party for allegedly benefit charge.
In response, the BJP argued that the EC was “occupying a gain office,” AAP has responded by saying that the EC notification was “misunderstood” and were prone to “challenge this order.”
The EC order of June 23, argued that the commission was “considered opinion” held by members of the AAP “de facto parliamentary secretaries office 13 March 2015 to 8 September 2016.”
The order comes days before the head of the Electoral Commission, Nasim Zaidi, dismantle the charge in July. The petition was filed against 21 AAP members, although charges have been brought against Jarnail Singh, who resigned as a member of Rajouri Garden to participate in the Assembly elections in Punjab.
The leader and spokesman of the BJP Sambit Patra, reacted to the order and wrote on Twitter: “So, finally, noeau tense the corrupt PAA.
The EC’s verdict that the 21 members of the AAP held a position of profit. “Last week, the opposition leader in the Delhi Assembly and BJP leader Vijender Gupta demanded that the EC take action in this case.
But AAP said the BJP’s claim was a “misunderstanding.” The deputy AAP and party spokesman, Saurabh Bhardwaj, said: “The recent request of the Electoral Commission should not be misunderstood the Supreme Court of Delhi said that the order of appointment 21. parliamentary secretaries was null and void.
Therefore, it is not a matter of hearing an office request that there was never an agreement with the Delhi Supreme Court. However, the Electoral Commission ordered that they still know the petition.
All resources are available to challenge the EC order. We respect the orders of the honorable elections of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Commission. ”
Earlier, HC Delhi had canceled the appointment of parliamentarians as Parliamentary Secretaries, assuming that the decision to appoint them is given without the consent of the deputy governor.