Delhi High Court
Sandeep Kumar vs Arvind Kejriwal & Ors. on 10 April, 2024
Author: Manmohan
Bench: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, Manmohan
$~54
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5135/2024
SANDEEP KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nitin Meshram, Mr. Rishi Raj
Singh and Mr. Saurabh Singh,
Advocates
versus
ARVIND KEJRIWAL & ORS. ..... Respondent
Respondents
Through: Mr. Rahul Mehra, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Gautam Narayan, Mr. Prateek K.
Chadha, Mr. Sreekar Aechuri, Mr.
Chaitanya Gosain and Mr. Sahaj Karan
Singh, Advocates for R--1
Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr.
Apoorv Kurup, CGSC Mr. Akhil
Hasija, Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr. Saurabh
Tripathi and Mr. Vikramaditya,
Advocates for R-2
% Date of Decision: 10thApril, 2024.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
ORDER
% 10.04.2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT W.P.(C) 5135/2024 Page 1 of 5 Signing Date:10.04.2024 19:56:22 JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, ACJ: ACJ (ORAL) 1. The present Public
ublic Interest Litigation ('PIL') has been filed seeking Writ in the nature of Quo Warranto calling upon Respondent No. 1 to show by what authority, qualification and title, he holds the office of the Chief Minister of Delhi under Article 239AA of the Constitution and and, after an inquiry to dislodge him from the office of the Chief Minister of Delhi with or without retrospective effect.
2. At the outset, it has been put to the learned counsel for the Petitioner if he is aware about the orders dated 28th March, 20241, 01st April, 20242 and 04th April, 20243 passed by this Court dismissing PILs seeking identical relief.. In reply, learned counsel for the Petitioner fairly admits that he is aware about the said orders; however, he states that the Petitioner herein is entitled to maintain the present PIL in his independent capacity.
3. He states that Respondent No.1 while lodged lodged in jail has incurred incapacity to carry out his Constitutional obligations and functions under Articles 239AA (4), 167(b) and (c) of the Constitution and hence he can no longer function as the Chief Minister of Delhi.. He states that the Lieutenant Governor vernor is also prevented from discharging his Constitutional obligations under Article 167(c) of the Constitution due to the absence of access to the Chief Minister.
1W.P.(C) 4578/2024 2 W.P.(C) 4642/2024 3 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 4904/2024 Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:10.04.2024 W.P.(C) 5135/2024 Page 2 of 5 19:56:22
4. He relies upon the judgment of Supreme Court in B.R. Kapur v. State of T.N. and Another4 to contend that a writ of Quo Warranto can be issued by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner, we are of the view that the present PIL is not maintainable in view of the earlier orders passed by this Court dismissing PILs seeking identical relief. In this regard, we may 2 th March, 2024 passed in W.P.(C) 457 refer to our order dated 28 4578/2024, which reads as under:
"1. Present public interest petition has been filed seeking Writ in the nature of Quo Warranto calling upon the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to justify under what authority Respondent No. 4 is continuing to hold the post of Chief Minister of Government of NCT of Delhi Delhi and to further remove Respondent No. 4 from the post of Chief Minister of the Government of NCT of Delhi.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the continuance of Respondent No. 4 as the Chief Minister of Government of NCT of Delhi after hiss arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in the money laundering case relating to the alleged liquor policy scam has degraded the credibility and image of Government of NCT of Delhi in the eyes of general public. He states that the continuance of Respondent No. 4 as Chief Minister has lead to breakdown of Constitutional machinery in the State.
3. He contends that with the Chief Minister in custody, the State Government cannot function. In support of his contention, he relies upon Rule 585 of the Delhi Prisonn Rules, 2018, which reads as under:-
under:
"Every prisoner shall be allowed reasonable facilities for seeking or communicating with, his family members, relatives, friends and legal advisers for the preparation of an appeal or for procuring bail or for arrangingg the management of his property and family affairs He shall be allowed to have interviews with his family members, relatives, friends and legal advisers twice in a week. A prisoner may be allowed to work any number of letters at his cost, however government governm ent will provide four post cards in a month, if he so desires.
desires "
4. Having heard the counsel for the Petitioner and having perused the paper-
paper book, this Court is of the view that there is no scope for judicial interference in the present matter. This Court in writ jurisdiction cannot remove or dismiss Respondent No. 4 from from the post of Chief Minister of the Government 4 Signature Not Verified (2001) 7 SCC 231 at para 59 Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:10.04.2024 W.P.(C) 5135/2024 Page 3 of 5 19:56:22 of NCT of Delhi or declare breakdown of constitutional machinery in the State. It is for the other organs of the State to examine the said aspect in accordance with law. This Court clarifies that it has not commented commented upon the merits of the allegations.
5. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is dismissed.
dismissed."
6. The filing of the present PIL by the Petitioner despite being aware of the dismissal of three earlier PILs seeking identical reliefs is sufficient evidence of the fact that the Petitioner has filed this PIL to gain publicity.
7. The Supreme Court as early as in Sachidanand Pandey v. State of W.B.5 and in Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India and Ors.6 has taken note of the menace of filing of the frivolous PILs and cautioned against entertaining of such PILs. In our opinion, present PIL is misconceived in view of the earlier orders passed by this Court.
8. The frivolity of the PIL is also evident from the fact that the Petitioner has placed aced reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court in B.R. Kapur v. State of T.N. and Another (supra) to maintain the PIL despite being aware that the facts of the said case were completely distinguishable. In the said case, the Respondent--Chief Minister on the date of her swearing in as a Chief Minister stood disqualified, by reason of her conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act,, 1988 and the sentence of imprisonment of not less than two years, for becoming a member of the legislature under Section 8(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 ('Act of 1951').. Admittedly, the Respondent No.1 herein has not suffered any disqualification under the Act of 1951.
5(1987) 2 SCC 295 para 59 6 Signature Not Verified (2004) 3 SCC 363 para 12 and 14 Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:10.04.2024 W.P.(C) 5135/2024 Page 4 of 5 19:56:22
9. With respect to the submission of the Petitioner that the incarceration of the Chief Minister has led to difficulties in functioning of the Government and the Lieutenant Governor overnor, this aspect as well was also duly considered and opined upon by this Court vide order dated 28th March, 2024 in W.P.(C) 4574/2024.
10. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/-
Rs.50,000/ to be deposited with Delhi High Court Staff Welfare Fund (Account No:
No:- 15530110074442, IFSC Code:- UCBA0001553, Branch:- Delhi High Court) Court within four weeks.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J APRIL 10, 2024/hp/ms hp/ms Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:10.04.2024 W.P.(C) 5135/2024 Page 5 of 5 19:56:22