In a renewed confrontation between Delhi Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena and the Chief Minister’s office, Atishi’s office has alleged that she was evicted from her official residence following the LG’s orders.
According to ANI, the chief minister’s office stated that the belongings of Atishi were removed from the CM’s residence at ‘6, Flag Staff Road,’ located in Delhi’s Civil Lines area, by orders from the LG.
Watch:
View this post on Instagram
Meanwhile, Virendraa Sachdeva, the Delhi BJP president, claimed that Arvind Kejriwal’s residence, referred to as ‘Sheesh Mahal,’ has been sealed and suggested that the property may conceal secrets. “Arvind Kejriwal’s ‘Sheesh Mahal’ has finally been sealed… What secrets are hidden in that bungalow that without handing over the keys to the concerned department, you were trying to enter the bungalow again? You created a good drama by taking your belongings in two small trucks. Everyone knows that the bungalow is still in your possession. The way you tried to hand over the bungalow to Atishi was unconstitutional. Atishi has already been allotted a bungalow then how can she take your bungalow? A lot of secrets are hidden in that bungalow,” Sachdeva stated.
Delhi’s leader of opposition, Vijender Gupta, commented on the issue, saying, “Finally, Kejriwal’s PwD employees had to surrender and accept our demands. Arvind Kejriwal’s ‘sheesh mahal’ has been sealed… The whole fiasco needs to be investigated. The current CM was illegally moved to the bungalow. What is the conspiracy behind this? Why wasn’t the bungalow handed over to PwD by following protocols… What is Arvind Kejriwal trying to hide in the Sheesh Mahal?”
Arvind Kejriwal, the former chief minister, vacated the official CM residence last week after resigning from the position. He has since relocated to 5, Ferozeshah Road near Mandi House, a property allocated to AAP MP Ashok Mittal. However, the Public Works Department (PWD) later issued a notice to Kejriwal, asking him to return the keys to the CM residence. The department cited ongoing vigilance cases regarding construction at the property, stating that a thorough inspection and inventory assessment was “necessary” before reassigning the house to another occupant.
