Sandeep Kumar v. Arvind Kejriwal & Ors

O R D E R

10.04.2024 DELHI Petitioner Mr. Rishi Raj aurabh Singh, ndents Advocate with Mr. Prateek K. Aechuri, Mr. Mr. Sahaj Karan -1 ASG with Mr. C Mr. Akhil ta, Mr. Saurabh Vikramaditya, pril, 2024. ARORA MANMOHAN, ACJ

¶1The present Pu Writ in the nature of by what authority, qu Minister of Delhi un inquiry to dislodge hi without retrospective

¶2At the outset, it he is aware about the 04th April, 20243 pa relief. In reply, learn aware about the said entitled to maintain th

¶3He states that incapacity to carry o Articles 239AA (4), 1 longer function as the Governor is also pre under Article 167(c) Chief Minister. 1 W.P.(C) 4578/2024 2W.P.(C) 4642/2024 3 W.P.(C) 4904/2024 JUDGMENT J: (ORAL) ublic Interest Litigation ('PIL') has bee Quo Warranto calling upon Respondent ualification and title, he holds the offic nder Article 239AA of the Constitution m from the office of the Chief Minister o effect. t has been put to the learned counsel for t e orders dated 28th March, 20241, 01st A ssed by this Court dismissing PILs se ned counsel for the Petitioner fairly ad orders; however, he states that the Peti he present PIL in his independent capacity Respondent No.1 while lodged in jai out his Constitutional obligations and f 167(b) and (c) of the Constitution and h e Chief Minister of Delhi. He states that vented from discharging his Constitutio of the Constitution due to the absence o n filed seeking t No. 1 to show ce of the Chief n and, after an of Delhi with or the Petitioner if April, 20242 and eeking identical dmits that he is tioner herein is y. il has incurred functions under hence he can no t the Lieutenant onal obligations of access to the

¶4He relies upon of T.N. and Another4 this Court in exercise

¶5Having heard th that the present PIL is this Court dismissing refer to our order date reads as under: "1. Present public of Quo Warranto c what authority Res Minister of Govern No. 4 from the post

¶2Learned counse Respondent No. 4 a his arrest by the E relating to the alleg image of Governm states that the conti breakdown of Const

¶3He contends that cannot function. In Delhi Prison Rules, "Every prisoner communicating advisers for the arranging the ma He shall be allow friends and lega work any numbe four post cards in

¶4Having heard the book, this Court is in the present mat dismiss Respondent 4(2001) 7 SCC 231 at para 59 the judgment of Supreme Court in B.R. to contend that a writ of Quo Warranto c of its writ jurisdiction. he learned counsel for the Petitioner, we s not maintainable in view of the earlier o g PILs seeking identical relief. In this r ed 28th March, 2024 passed in W.P.(C) 45 interest petition has been filed seeking Writ in calling upon the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to jus spondent No. 4 is continuing to hold the pos ment of NCT of Delhi and to further remove R of Chief Minister of the Government of NCT of D el for the Petitioner states that the contin as the Chief Minister of Government of NCT of D Enforcement Directorate in the money launde ged liquor policy scam has degraded the cred ment of NCT of Delhi in the eyes of general p inuance of Respondent No. 4 as Chief Minister h titutional machinery in the State. t with the Chief Minister in custody, the State Go support of his contention, he relies upon Rule 2018, which reads as under:- r shall be allowed reasonable facilities for seeking o with, his family members, relatives, friends and lega preparation of an appeal or for procuring bail or fo anagement of his property and family affairs wed to have interviews with his family members, relatives l advisers twice in a week. A prisoner may be allowed to er of letters at his cost, however government will provid n a month, if he so desires. " e counsel for the Petitioner and having perused of the view that there is no scope for judicial in tter. This Court in writ jurisdiction cannot r t No. 4 from the post of Chief Minister of the Go Kapur v. State can be issued by are of the view orders passed by regard, we may 78/2024, which the nature stify under st of Chief Respondent Delhi. nuance of Delhi after ering case dibility and public. He has lead to overnment 585 of the or al or s, o de the paper-nterference remove or overnment of NCT of Delhi o State. It is for the accordance with law merits of the allegat

¶5With the aforesai

¶6The filing of th the dismissal of thre evidence of the fact th

¶7The Supreme C W.B.5 and in Dr. B. S menace of filing of th such PILs. In our opi orders passed by this

¶8The frivolity of has placed reliance u State of T.N. and An that the facts of the case, the Respondent-Minister stood disqua of Corruption Act, 19 two years, for becomi Representation of P Respondent No.1 here 1951. 5 (1987) 2 SCC 295 para 59 6 (2004) 3 SCC 363 para 12 an r declare breakdown of constitutional machin other organs of the State to examine the said w. This Court clarifies that it has not commented tions. d observations, the present writ petition is dismi he present PIL by the Petitioner despite ee earlier PILs seeking identical relie hat the Petitioner has filed this PIL to gain Court as early as in Sachidanand Pan Singh v. Union of India and Ors.6 has ta he frivolous PILs and cautioned against nion, present PIL is misconceived in vie Court. f the PIL is also evident from the fact tha upon the judgment of Supreme Court in nother (supra) to maintain the PIL despi said case were completely distinguishab -Chief Minister on the date of her swearin alified, by reason of her conviction under 988 and the sentence of imprisonment o ing a member of the legislature under Sec People Act, 1951 ('Act of 1951'). A ein has not suffered any disqualification u nd 14 nery in the d aspect in d upon the issed." being aware of fs is sufficient n publicity. dey v. State of aken note of the entertaining of ew of the earlier at the Petitioner B.R. Kapur v. ite being aware ble. In the said ng in as a Chief r the Prevention of not less than ction 8(3) of the Admittedly, the under the Act of

¶9With respect to of the Chief Minister and the Lieutenant Go opined upon by this 4574/2024.

¶10With the afores with costs of Rs.50,00 Fund (Account No Branch:- Delhi High C APRIL 10, 2024/hp/m o the submission of the Petitioner that th has led to difficulties in functioning of t overnor, this aspect as well was also duly Court vide order dated 28th March, 20 said observations, the present writ petitio 00/- to be deposited with Delhi High Cou o:- 15530110074442, IFSC Code:- U Court) within four weeks. ACTING CH MANMEET PRITAM SING ms he incarceration the Government considered and 024 in W.P.(C) on is dismissed urt Staff Welfare UCBA0001553, HIEF JUSTICE GH ARORA, J

* IN THE HIG + W.P.(C) 5135/2 SANDEEP KU ARVIND KEJR % CORAM: HON'BLE THE AC HON'BLE MS. JUST % GH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW D 2024 UMAR ..... P Through: Mr. Nitin Meshram, M Singh and Mr. Sa Advocates versus RIWAL & ORS. ..... Respon Through: Mr. Rahul Mehra, Sr. Mr. Gautam Narayan, M Chadha, Mr. Sreekar Chaitanya Gosain and M Singh, Advocates for R- Mr. Chetan Sharma, A Apoorv Kurup, CGS Hasija, Mr. Amit Gupt Tripathi and Mr. Advocates for R-2 Date of Decision: 10thAp TING CHIEF JUSTICE TICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH A