SANDEEP KUMAR  Vs ARVIND KEJRIWAL & ORS.Judgment by Delhi High Court

$~54
* IN THE HIG GH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW D DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5135/22024
SANDEEP KU UMAR Through: Mr. Nitin Singh and Advocates M ….. P eshram, M Mr. Sa Petitioner Mr. Rishi aurabh Singh, Raj

versus
ARVIND KEJRRIWAL & ORS. ….. Respon ndents
Through: Mr. Rahul Mehra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gautam Narayan, MMr. Prateek K. Chadha, Mr. Sreekar Aechuri, Mr. Chaitanya Gosain and M Mr. Sahaj Karan Singh, Advocates for R–1 Mr. Chetan Sharma, AASG with Mr. Apoorv Kurup, CGS SC Mr. Akhil Hasija, Mr. Amit Gupt ta, Mr. Saurabh Tripathi and Mr. Vikramaditya, Advocates for R-2
% Date of Decision: 10thAppril, 2024.
CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MS. JUSTTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH A ARORA
ORDER % 10.04.2024
W.P.(C) 5135/2024 Page 1 of 5

JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, ACJ J: (ORAL)
1.
The present Publublic Interest Litigation (�PIL�) has bee en filed seeking Writ in the nature of Quo Warranto calling upon Respondent t No. 1 to show by what authority, quaqualification and title, he holds the offic ce of the Chief Minister of Delhi unde nder Article 239AA of the Constitution on and, after an inquiry to dislodge hi him from the office of the Chief Minister of of Delhi with or without retrospective effect.

2.
At the outset, itt has been put to the learned counsel for tthe Petitioner if he is aware about the e orders dated 28th March, 20241, 01st AApril, 20242 and 04th April, 20243 passsed by this Court dismissing PILs se eeking identical relief. In reply, learn ned counsel for the Petitioner fairly ad dmits that he is aware about the said orders; however, he states that the Peti itioner herein is entitled to maintain th he present PIL in his independent capacity y.

3.
He states that Respondent No.1 while lodged in jaiil has incurred incapacity to carry o out his Constitutional obligations and f functions under Articles 239AA (4), 1167(b) and (c) of the Constitution and he hence he can no longer function as thehe Chief Minister of Delhi. He states that t the Lieutenant Governor is also pre eonal obligations

vented from discharging his Constitution under Article 167(c) of the Constitution due to the absence ofof access to the Chief Minister.
1 W.P.(C) 4578/2024
2W.P.(C) 4642/2024

3 W.P.(C) 4904/2024

W.P.(C) 5135/2024 Page 2 of 5

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 c can be issued by
this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
5. Having heard thehe learned counsel for the Petitioner, we are of the view
that the present PIL is s not maintainable in view of the earlier o orders passed by
this Court dismissing ng PILs seeking identical relief. In this r regard, we may
refer to our order date ed 28th March, 2024 passed in W.P.(C) 457 578/2024, which
reads as under:
�1. Present public iinterest petition has been filed seeking Writ in the nature of Quo Warranto c calling upon the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to jus ustify under what authority Res spondent No. 4 is continuing to hold the pos post of Chief Minister of Governm nment of NCT of Delhi and to further remove R Respondent No. 4 from the post of Chief Minister of the Government of NCT of DDelhi.
2.
Learned counseel for the Petitioner states that the continuan nuance of Respondent No. 4 as as the Chief Minister of Government of NCT of D Delhi after his arrest by the EEnforcement Directorate in the money launde ering case relating to the allegged liquor policy scam has degraded the crediibility and image of Governm nment of NCT of Delhi in the eyes of general publpublic. He states that the conti inuance of Respondent No. 4 as Chief Minister has has lead to breakdown of Consttitutional machinery in the State.

3.
He contends that hat with the Chief Minister in custody, the State Govovernment cannot function. In support of his contention, he relies upon Rule 585 of the Delhi Prison Rules, , 2018, which reads as under:�

�Every prisoner r shall be allowed reasonable facilities for seeking oor communicating with, his family members, relatives, friends and legal al advisers for the preparation of an appeal or for procuring bail or for or arranging the ma anagement of his property and family affairs
He shall be allowe wed to have interviews with his family members, relatives s, friends and legalgal advisers twice in a week. A prisoner may be allowed too work any numbe er of letters at his cost, however government will provide de four post cards in n a month, if he so desires. �
4. Having heard the he counsel for the Petitioner and having perused the paper-book, this Court is of the view that there is no scope for judicial int nterference in the present mat atter. This Court in writ jurisdiction cannot rremove or dismiss Respondent t No. 4 from the post of Chief Minister of the Goovernment
4(2001) 7 SCC 231 at para 59

W.P.(C) 5135/2024 Page 3 of 5

of NCT of Delhi or or declare breakdown of constitutional machin nery in the State. It is for the other organs of the State to examine the said d aspect in accordance with law w. This Court clarifies that it has not commentedd upon the merits of the allegat gations.
5. With the aforesai d observations, the present writ petition is dismiissed.�
6.
The filing of thehe present PIL by the Petitioner despite being aware of the dismissal of threee earlier PILs seeking identical relieffs is sufficient evidence of the fact tha hat the Petitioner has filed this PIL to gain n publicity.

7.
The Supreme CCourt as early as in Sachidanand Pan ndey v. State of

W.B.5 and in Dr. B. S Singh v. Union of India and Ors.6 has ta aken note of the menace of filing of thehe frivolous PILs and cautioned against entertaining of such PILs. In our opi nion, present PIL is misconceived in vie ew of the earlier orders passed by this CCourt.
8. The frivolity of f the PIL is also evident from the fact tha at the Petitioner has placed reliance u upon the judgment of Supreme Court in B.R. Kapur v. State of T.N. and An nother (supra) to maintain the PIL despipite being aware that the facts of the said case were completely distinguishabble. In the said case, the Respondent–Chief Minister on the date of her swearinng in as a Chief Minister stood disqua alified, by reason of her conviction under r the Prevention of Corruption Act, 191988 and the sentence of imprisonment of of not less than two years, for becomiing a member of the legislature under Sec ction 8(3) of the Representation of PPeople Act, 1951 (�Act of 1951�). AAdmittedly, the Respondent No.1 here ein has not suffered any disqualification unde under the Act of 1951.
5 (1987) 2 SCC 295 para 59

6(2004) 3 SCC 363 para 12 an nd 14

W.P.(C) 5135/2024 Page 4 of 5

9.
With respect to o the submission of the Petitioner that th he incarceration of the Chief Minister has led to difficulties in functioning of t the Government and the Lieutenant Goveovernor, this aspect as well was also duly considered and opined upon by this Court vide order dated 28th March, 20 024 in W.P.(C) 4574/2024.

10.
With the aforessaid observations, the present writ petitionon is dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/ 000/-to be deposited with Delhi High Cour ourt Staff Welfare Fund (Account No: o:-15530110074442, IFSC Code:-UUCBA0001553, Branch:-Delhi High CCourt) within four weeks.

ACTING CH HIEF JUSTICE
MANMEET PRITAM SINGGH ARORA, J APRIL 10, 2024/hp/m ms
W.P.(C) 5135/2024 Page 5 of 5