AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Manmohan, J
The present Public 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 officce of the Chief Minister of Delhi unnder Article 239AA of the Constitutionn and, after an inquiry to dislodge him from the office of the Chief Minister of Delhi with or without retrospective effect.
At the outset, itt has been put to the learned counsel for the Petitioner if he is aware about thee orders dated 28th March, 2024 W.P.(C) 4578/2024, 01st April, 2024 W.P.(C) 4642/2024 and 4th April, 2024 W.P.(C) 4904/2024 passed by this Court dismissing PILs se eking identical relief. In reply, learnned 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 thhe present PIL in his independent capacityy.
He states that Respondent No.1 while 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 thee Chief Minister of Delhi. He states that the Lieutenant Governor is also prevented from discharging his Constitutioonal obligations under Article 167(c) of the Constitution due to the absence of access to the Chief Minister.
He relies upon the judgment of Supreme Court in B.R. Kapur v. State of T.N. and Another (2001) 7 SCC 231 at para 59 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 by this Court dismissingg PILs seeking identical relief. In this regard, we may refer to our order dateed 28th March, 2024 passed in W.P.(C) 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 jusstify under what authority Resspondent No. 4 is continuing to hold the post of Chief Minister of Government of NCT of Delhi and to further remove Respondent No. 4 from the post of Chief Minister of the Government of NCT of Delhi.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the continnuance of Respondent No. 4 a s the Chief Minister of Government of NCT of Delhi after his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in the money laundeering 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.
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 o r communicating with, his family members, relatives, friends and legaal advisers for the preparation of an appeal or for procuring bail or fo r arranging the maanagement of his property and family affairs
He shall be allowwed to have interviews with his family members, relativess, friends and legal advisers twice in a week. A prisoner may be allowed to work any numbeer of letters at his cost, however government will provide four post cards inn a month, if he so desires. ”
Having heard thee counsel for the Petitioner and having perused the paper-book, this Court is of the view that there is no scope for judicial innterference in the present mattter. This Court in writ jurisdiction cannot remove or dismiss Respondentt No. 4 from 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 laww. This Court clarifies that it has not commente d upon the merits of the allegations.
With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is dismiissed.”
The filing of thhe present PIL by the Petitioner despite being aware of the dismissal of three earlier PILs seeking identical reliefs is sufficient evidence of the fact thhat the Petitioner has filed this PIL to gainn publicity.
The Supreme Court as early as in Sachidanand Pandey v. State of W.B. (1987) 2 SCC 295 para 59 and in Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India and Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 363 para 12 annd 14 has taaken 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.
The frivolity off the PIL is also evident from the fact thaat the Petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court in B.R. Kapur v. State of T.N. and Annother (supra) to maintain the PIL despiite 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 sweari ng in as a Chief Minister stood disquaalified, by reason of her conviction underr the Prevention of Corruption Act, 19988 and the sentence of imprisonment of not less than two years, for becomiing a member of the legislature under Secction 8(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (‘Act of 1951’). Admittedly, the Respondent No.1 hereein has not suffered any disqualification under the Act of 1951.
With respect too the submission of the Petitioner that thhe incarceration of the Chief Minister has led to difficulties in functioning of the Government and the Lieutenant Governor, 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.
With the aforessaid observations, the present writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.50,0000/- to be deposited with Delhi High Court Staff Welfare Fund (Account No:- 15530110074442, IFSC Code:- UCBA0001553, Branch:- Delhi High Court) within four weeks.