PMC corporators debunk officials

PUNE, Dec 23: In a show of solidarity, the elected representatives made mince meat out of the civic officials' penchant for throwing law ...

PUNE, Dec 23: In a show of solidarity, the elected representatives made mince meat out of the civic officials’ penchant for throwing law books at them over their right to ask priority questions in the House, yesterday. They made no bones about their disgust at the manner in which the civic administration was misguided due to the alleged misinterpretation of court orders by the Pune Municipal Corporation’s legal eye.

There has been simmering discontent amongst the corporators over Municipal Commissioner Rajiv Agarwal’s directive based on the Pune Municipal Court judge (junior division) Shiv Motriya’s interim order stating that there was no need to secure the presence of all the officers at the time of the corporation meetings. The Mayor has also been told not to admit priority questions and point of information from the next general body meeting while restricting the question hour session to half an hour.

Agarwal told the House that he would not be able to answer questions of the previous adjourned meeting as the matter was pending in court. He substantiated his decision not to answer queries as advised by the law officer. BJP Corporator Ujwal Keskar instantly pointed out the absence of officers concerned with the day’s agenda at the meeting and sought to know what legal action Agarwal would take against them. Corporators Shiva Mantri and Aba Bagul too sarcastically demanded that would the House remain shut in future if the officers were not present at the meeting.

The corporators including Leader of the House Chandrakant Chhajed and party leader Ulhas Dhole Patil turned their ire on the legal advisor R A Thorat for allegedly misguiding the commissioner when he had obtained the certified copy of the order nearly an hour after Agarwal had stated that he would not be able to answer questions. “We have wasted 50 minutes of the city’s development due to the incorrect advice provided by Thorat to Agarwal,” Arun Dhimdhime charged. While Thorat clarified that the legal department had received the court’s operative order on December 15, according to the certified copy, those questions not answered in the previous meeting could be asked at the next.