Delhi High Court Stays Order To Evict Jasmine Shah From Government Accommodation
The Delhi High Court on Friday stayed a recent order asking Jasmine Shah to vacate the government accommodation. The Aam Aadmi Party leader was removed from the post of Vice Chairperson of Dialogue and Development Commission of Delhi last year.Justice Prathiba M Singh stayed the operation of the order passed on April 25 by the Public Works Department, which also said that Shah be treated as...
The Delhi High Court on Friday stayed a recent order asking Jasmine Shah to vacate the government accommodation. The Aam Aadmi Party leader was removed from the post of Vice Chairperson of Dialogue and Development Commission of Delhi last year.
Justice Prathiba M Singh stayed the operation of the order passed on April 25 by the Public Works Department, which also said that Shah be treated as an “unauthorised occupant.”
The court was hearing Shah’s application to restrain the authorities from giving effect to the eviction order, filed in the pending plea challenging his removal from the post.
During the course of hearing, Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain appearing for Delhi Lieutenant Governor Vinai Kumar Saxena submitted that the order, passed by the PWD, is an integral part of the original order passed on November 30, last year vide which the issue has been referred to the President.
“This is a government accommodation under the Public Premises Act. Withdrawing of the privileges including the house is already part of the order. That order is part of my counter affidavit,” Jain submitted.
However, the court said that it was “surprised to see the application” and stayed the eviction order.
“This matter has been part heard before this court for the last two three hearings. The counsel for the petitioner has already concluded. Learned ASG has partly made the submissions. The case is now listed on May 24. Under such circumstances, the direction to the petitioner to evict the residential accommodation and to treat him as an unauthorised occupant shall remain stayed,” the court ordered.
Earlier, ASG Jain had submitted that Shah’s plea is premature and that the court ought to await the decision on the reference made by the LG to the President of India regarding the issue of his removal before deciding the matter.
Shah in his plea challenged the LG's decision asking Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal to remove him from the post and restricting him from discharge of functions as the V-C in the meantime.
In an order conveyed through Director (Planning) Vijendra Singh Rawat on November 17 last year, the LG had requested Kejriwal to remove Shah from his post for allegedly misusing the public office for political activities.
Pending the decision of the Chief Minister, Shah was restricted by the LG from using his office space and the staff and facilities assigned to him were also withdrawn.
The LG and Delhi's Director (Planning), in a preliminary counter affidavit, said that the matter regarding Shah’s removal from the VC post was referred for a decision by President of India, due to the difference of opinion between LG and Chief Minister.
In September, 2022, BJP MP Pravesh Sahib Singh had filed a complaint alleging that Shah was acting as official spokesperson of the Aam Aadmi Party before the media, and called it a misuse of public office.
Shah, who was appointed as the chairperson of the government think tank in 2020, was issued a show cause notice by the Director of Planning Department for alleged "misuse of public resources" for political activities.
Shah had chosen to submit his response to the Chief Minister through Deputy Chief Minister/Minister (Planning). The LG had earlier sought a copy of the reply from the Chief Minister's office but the same was not provided, according to the planning department.
Defending his political activities, Shah in his petition has argued that the expectation of 'political neutrality' is only associated with 'government servants' who constitute the 'permanent executive' in a parliamentary system of democracy such as the one adopted by India.
He has also said that he has never used the official premises of the DDCD for any television debate or media interaction "as alleged in the complaint, and rubber stamped in the impugned order".
Title: JASMINE SHAH v. DIRECTOR (PLANNING) GNCTD
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 353