New Delhi: The Delhi High Court today refused to stay the Delhi Commission for Women's (DCW) summons to AAP leader Kumar Vishwas issued on a party volunteer's complaint alleging that her life was ruined since he was not rebutting "rumours" about their illicit liaison.
Justice Rajiv Shakdher, however, issued notices to DCW, chairperson Barkha Singh and the woman Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) volunteer on a plea moved by Vishwas seeking stay on the summons.
"Issue notice to DCW, Respondent 3 (Barkha Singh). Issue notice also to Miss X (the AAP volunteer who has filed complaint before DCW)", the court said while directing the registry of the Delhi High Court to serve the copy of the petition filed by the petitioner (Vishwas) to the respondents.
The court notices were issued after Vishwas filed an amended memo of parties, including the Delhi government, on the direction of the court's earlier order.
The judge, however, today asked Vishwas' counsel Somnath Bharti to file a fresh memo of parties along with an application before it by following a proper procedure.
Delhi government's standing counsel Raman Duggal, who was present in the court on advance intimation given by the petitioner, also said that the government is not required as a party in the present matter.
The court then deleted the Delhi government as a party in the case after the AAP leader's counsel also failed to justify its presence in the matter.
While deleting the Delhi government as a party from the case, the court noted in its order that a submission was made on behalf of the government that it is not required in the matter.
The court also declined Vishwas's prayer that the summons should be stayed, saying let the (respondents) come back first with their replies, then it will think over it.
"No, I will not stay the summons at this stage," the judge said.
The court then fixed the matter for further hearing on July 1.
During the proceedings, the court was "annoyed and surprised" over the way Bharti filed the amended memo of parties without filing any application, and was of the view that if he want to get some order, it has to be done as per the procedure.
"First you have to make a case. The procedural aspect has to be in place," the court said.
