The Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking action against Chief Minister Atishi for purportedly permitting former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and his family to continue occupying a government-allocated bungalow after his resignation.
Sisodia had resigned in connection with the ongoing investigation into the liquor policy case. Despite the bungalow being officially reallocated to Atishi in March 2023, the petitioner alleged that Sisodia’s family continued residing there.
The division bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, rejected the PIL filed by Sanjeev Jain, who identified himself as a social worker and RTI activist. The court noted that competent authorities are empowered to address any potential rule violations in such matters.
“We do not consider it apposite to pass any orders in the petition. If any Rules are violated, the concerned authorities are fully competent to take action as and when required. Dismissed,” the court stated.
The petitioner contended that Sisodia’s continued occupancy amounted to a misuse of government property and a blatant violation of established norms for the allocation and vacation of official accommodations. The plea also alleged that Atishi, despite being the rightful allottee of the bungalow, did not object to the continued presence of Sisodia’s family, suggesting potential political motivations.
“It is surprising that even after the bungalow was reallocated to Ms. Atishi in March 2023, and despite her residing in Jangpura, she did not raise any objection to Mr. Sisodia’s family occupying the residence,” the petition argued.
Furthermore, the petitioner claimed that Atishi’s inaction might be attributed to her intent to gain favor within the political hierarchy, implying that her actions were driven by personal political considerations.
The petition also alleged that this arrangement reflected a “clear-cut misuse of government property,” asserting that such practices should not be allowed for personal benefit or to demonstrate loyalty to political mentors. “This act could be seen as an attempt to curry favor with Mr. Sisodia, who has been a guiding figure in her political career,” the plea stated.
Despite the petitioner’s assertions, the court refrained from intervening, reiterating that administrative bodies possess the necessary jurisdiction to handle such issues. This dismissal underscores the judiciary’s stance on limiting its role in administrative and procedural matters unless clear evidence of illegality or procedural lapses is presented.
The case highlights ongoing political tensions and procedural scrutiny in the governance of Delhi, particularly in the aftermath of high-profile investigations involving prominent AAP leaders.
