Sandeep Kumar v. Arvind Kejriwal & Ors.

1. The present Public 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 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 04th April, 2024[3] passed by this Court 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 lo 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 Governor 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. W.P.(C) 4578/2024 W.P.(C) 4642/2024 W.P.(C) 4904/2024

JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, ACJ: (ORAL) ublic Interest Litigation (‘PIL’) has been filed seeking Minister of Delhi under Article 239AA of the Constitution and dislodge him from the office of the Chief Minister of Delhi with or without retrospective effect. At the outset, it has been put to the learned counsel for the Petitioner if he is aware about the orders dated 28th March, 2024[1], 01st April, 2024 passed by this Court dismissing PILs seeking identical. In reply, learned counsel for the Petitioner fairly admits that he is He states that Respondent No.1 while lodged in jail has incurred longer function as the Chief Minister of Delhi. He states that the Lieutenant vernor is also prevented from discharging his Constitutional obligations has been filed seeking Minister of Delhi under Article 239AA of the Constitution and, after an dislodge him from the office of the Chief Minister of Delhi with or At the outset, it has been put to the learned counsel for the Petitioner if April, 2024[2] and PILs seeking identical. In reply, learned counsel for the Petitioner fairly admits that he is dged in jail has incurred. He states that the Lieutenant vernor is also prevented from discharging his Constitutional obligations

4. He relies upon the judgment of Supreme Court in of T.N. and Another[4] 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 this Court dismissing PILs seeking identical relief. In this regard, we may refer to our order dated 2 reads as under:

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 his 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 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 Prison Rules, 2018, which reads as 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 arranging 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 governm four post cards in a month, if he so desires

4. Having heard the counsel for the Petitioner and having perused the 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 fr

He relies upon the judgment of Supreme Court in B.R. Kapur v. State to contend that a writ of Quo Warranto can be issued by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 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 refer to our order dated 28th March, 2024 passed in W.P.(C) 457 Present public interest petition has been filed seeking Writ in the nature Minister of Government of NCT of Delhi and to further remove Respondent s arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in the money laundering case states that the continuance of Respondent No. 4 as Chief Minister has lead to breakdown of Constitutional machinery in the State. n Rules, 2018, which reads as under:g the management of his property and family affairs work any number of letters at his cost, however government will provide four post cards in a month, if he so desires. ”

4. Having heard the counsel for the Petitioner and having perused the paper dismiss Respondent No. 4 from the post of Chief Minister of the Government B.R. Kapur v. State to contend that a writ of Quo Warranto can be issued by 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 4578/2024, which Present public interest petition has been filed seeking Writ in the nature hi and to further remove Respondent s arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in the money laundering case No. 4 as Chief Minister has lead to ent will provide

4. Having heard the counsel for the Petitioner and having perused the paperom the post of Chief Minister of the Government 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 c merits of the allegations.