Won’t utilise Chandigarh Mayor’s funds: AAP councillors

Chandigarh, August 22

AAP councillors have decided not to utilise money from the Rs 2-cr Mayor’s discretionary fund on works in their wards. The party has 14 councillors in the 35-member House.

Talking to Chandigarh Tribune, they said they did not consider Sarbjit Kaur as the Mayor as her election was “fraudulent”. The Mayor has so far utilised Rs 1.08 crore from her fund. The amount has been spent on wards represented by BJP and Congress councillors.

“The BJP Mayor was elected by one vote, which was invalid. Her election was bogus. A case in this regard is pending in the Punjab and Haryana High Court and we will not utilise the fund till the decision comes. Even in the House meetings, we address the chair, not her,” said AAP’s Leader of Opposition Yogesh Dhingra.

“We will instead use own Rs 80 lakh/year funds on the development of wards,” he further said.

However, AAP’s councillor Manaur said he had sent two proposals for Rs 16 lakh each regarding paver blocks to the Mayor and Deputy Mayor, respectively, but they had not approved these so far. “Let alone these proposals, no works have been carried out in the past eight months,” he added.

The Mayor said: “For me all councillors are equal as we need to work for the betterment of the city. If AAP councillors do not want to utilise funds on their ward, it is up to them. I have Rs 1 crore to spare and if they do not give me proposals, I will have to utilise the funds in other wards.”

The Mayor said other than BJP councillors, she had spent Rs 24.46 lakh on the ward of Congress’ councillor Sachin Galav for lights in Sector 11 green belt, and Rs 1.65 lakh in party councillor Gurbax Rawat’s ward for fixing a gazebo in a park

Plea seeks notification of nominated councillors’ names

Chandigarh: A city resident on Monday moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking directions to the UT to notify and publish names of nominated MC councillors. This, the petitioner contended, was required for “the smooth functioning of MC” and for strengthening and achieving the goals of welfare state. Petitioner Jaspal Singh through counsel Mandeep K Saajan submitted the Administrator was empowered to nominate 10 members. He added the respondents deliberately withheld the process on the grounds that an SLP was pending before the SC. But the question for determination in the SLP was regarding the voting right of nominated councillor and nothing else.