"Before disposing of the present petition, this court would like to note that during the course of arguments, the trust deficit between the members of Legislative Assembly and the bureaucrats is evident to the hilt".
On Wednesday the chief secretary moved an intervention application in the bail application of Khan.
"What was the urgency of issuing the notice".
Justice Mukta was referring to the notice by the Privileges Committee of the Delhi Assembly asking Prakash to appear before it in connection with a banking scam. "Wait for the outcome of the main plea pending here", the court told the panel's counsel.More news: Costco Wholesale Corporation (NASDAQ:COST) reports 10.8% rise in quarterly revenue
More news: British Interior Minister Visits Site Where Ex-Russian Spy Collapsed
More news: India's top court recognises the right to die with dignity
Jarwal's counsel Rebecca John told the court that her client is ready to give an undertaking, including that he will maintain distance from the Chief Secretary, and requested court to grant him bail.
The court also suggested that the committee should withdraw its March 6 notice in which it had asked Mr. Prakash to appear before it. However, advocate Manish Vashisht, appearing for the committee, said the panel can not withdraw the notice as it has been issued against two other officers as well, but assured the court that it won't insist on personal appearance of the chief secretary.
He also did not attend the subsequent meetings on February 21 and 23, following which the notice was issued on March 1.
The court had earlier reserved its order on his bail plea on March 7 and said it was a very unfortunate situation where the state and the officers felt unsafe and were being threatened by each other.
Vashisht claimed that no malafide or malice can be attributed in the issuance of the notice.