Delhi HC seeks CAG's reply on a plea challenging Ajmer Dargah Audit
The Delhi High Court sought a reply from the Controller and Auditor General (CAG) on a plea challenging the order of CAG for the audit of Ajmer Sharif Dargah's accounts.
ANI
Apr 28, 2025 23:02 IST
New Delhi [India], April 28 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Monday sought a reply from the Controller and Auditor General on a plea challenging the order of CAG for the audit of Ajmer Sharif Dargah's accounts. The High court said that it is inclined to stay the order in view of procedural lapses, if CAG doesn't do it. The High Court asked the counsel to take instructions and clarify their stand.
The Delhi High Court is dealing with a petition challenging the CAG's order for an audit of the accounts of Ajmer Sharif Dargah for the financial years 2022-23 to 2026-27.
Justice Sachin Datta granted time to the CAG until May 7 to clarify its stand.
This petition has been submitted by Anjuman Moinia Fakhria Chistiya Khuddam Khwaja Sahib Syed Zagdan Dargah Sharif, Ajmer, through advocate Ashish Singh.
During the hearing on an early hearing application, advocate Atul Agarwal, counsel for the petitioner, argued that they had not been served with the terms of the audit.
It was further submitted that the order itself is a violation of the CAG Act, which mandates the service of terms and conditions of audit to the institution whose accounts are to be audited. It also allows the institution to make a representation before the ministry concerned.
The counsel for CAG sought time to seek instructions.
The petitioner society had filed a petition challenging the decision of March 15, 2024, of the Ministry of minority affairs for conducting the audit.
However, the Ministry of Finance issued a communication on January 30, 2025 and entrusted the Audit to CAG, the plea said.
During the hearing, the bench asked whether the Audit had been started or not. Referring to the response filed by the CAG, the court said it has not been started. I am inclined to say that you take instructions and clarify your stand on what you are doing.
The bench also agreed with the submissions by the petitioner's counsel that they have a right to make a representation. You have not served them with terms of the audit. (ANI)
Get the App
