A bench of justices S Muralidhar and I S Mehta said as the issue was already before a regular bench; it being a vacation court will not pass any orders at this stage and tagged the PIL with another petition filed by a law student, who has also challenged the notifications.
“Vacation court can't grant stay. Let the regular division bench hear it. It is seized of the matter in another PIL,” the bench said.
Both petitions are now likely to be heard by the high court on August 5.
The vacation bench was hearing a PIL filed by a law firm, Sudeer Associates, which has said the notifications are creating "shield" for corrupt employees of the central government.
Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain, assisted by central government standing counsel Jasmeet Singh, submitted that no notice needs to be issued in the matter as a regular division bench is hearing the issue.
The law firm has contended that the notifications create a "different class of persons protected from normal course of prosecution" and questioned whether this can be done by a notification.
“Only an Act of Parliament can do this,” the PIL said, while seeking quashing of the Centre's May 21, 2015, and July 23, 2014, notifications which take away the power of ACB to take cognisance of cases of corruption in respect of Delhi police and employees of the central government.
The petition has said that ACB in other states and Union territories have the power to take cognisance of cases of corruption against police and central government employees.
It said even in Delhi, "in last 22 years" it was not thought necessary to take away power of ACB and claimed there was no justification to do so now when the people of the capital have given a massive mandate to present dispensation to fight corruption.
The earlier PIL filed by the law student has challenged thy Centre's May 21 notification giving the Lt Governor absolute powers in appointing bureaucrats in the national capital.
The PIL, by Vibhor Anand, was filed a day after the high court termed the May 21 notification as "suspect".
On May 29, the Centre had challenged the high court's May 25 order in the Supreme Court, which sought the Delhi government's response on the plea seeking stay on the judgement which termed as suspect the notification clipping powers of the AAP dispensation.
The high court in its order had held that ACB has the jurisdiction to arrest Delhi police personnel involved in criminal offences.
The PIL has also contended that the appointment of senior bureaucrat Shakuntala Gamlin as the acting chief secretary by the Delhi Lt. Governor was "illegal".