HC stays order asking Jasmine Shah to vacate government accommodation

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court Friday stayed an order asking Jasmine Shah, former vice chairperson of the Dialogue and Development Commission of Delhi (DDCD), to vacate his government accommodation.

Justice Prathiba M Singh said when the writ petition filed by Shah challenging his removal from the post of DDCD vice chairperson was already pending in the court, such an eviction order cannot be passed by the authorities.

The court said the matter has already been heard 2-3 times.

“...under such circumstances, directions to the petitioner (Shah) to vacate his government residential premises and to treat him as an unauthorised occupant shall remain stayed,” the judge said.

The court’s order came on an application filed by Shah seeking to direct the authorities that no further steps be taken by them pursuant to the April 25 order, issued by the special secretary of the Public Works Department, to evict him from the premises, forming his current and only place of residence.

The application was filed in a pending petition of Shah challenging a November 17, 2022 order issued by Director (Planning), Delhi government, on the LG’s request to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal to remove him from the post of vice chairperson of DDCD, and pending such a decision, to restrain him from using his office space and withdraw the staff and facilities assigned to him.

The DDCD offices were subsequently sealed on the night of November 17 last year for preventing its alleged “misuse by Shah for political gains”. The sealing exercise was undertaken by the Planning Department of the Delhi government.

“The impugned orders do not at all terminate the petitioner’s designation or remove him from his post as vice chairperson. In such a case, an order directing his eviction from allotted government accommodation is entirely premature and without jurisdiction,” the plea said. Shah was represented through senior advocate Rahul Mehra. During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain, representing the LG, said the April 25 order was not issued by the LG and it was an order of PWD.

He said this order was an integral part of the original order passed in November last year vide which the issue has been referred to the President.

“This is a government accommodation under the Public Premises Act and withdrawing of the privileges including the house is already a part of the order,” Jain said, adding that the petitioner has only been declared an unauthorised occupant and he could not have the application here.

The judge said, “I must say I was very surprised to see this application.”