2016 (8) TMI 1503 - SC - Indian Laws

Government bungalows occupied by former Chief Ministers of the State of Uttar Pradesh even after demitting office of the Chief Minister for several years without any right to retain the same - Maintainability of the writ petition filed in the public interest - validity of provisions of Ex-Chief Ministers Residence Allotment Rules, 1997. Whether the writ petition filed in the public interest is maintainable and whether the writ Petitioner has locus standi to file the writ petition? - HELD THAT - The Petitioner has locus standi to file the writ petition - when the Petitioner society is challenging the validity of the 1997 Rules, whereby government bungalows have been allotted to former Chief Ministers, especially when there is an acute shortage of government premises, in our opinion, it cannot be said that the Petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition. Whether the Ex-Chief Ministers Residence Allotment Rules, 1997 are legal and valid? - HELD THAT - The term Minister includes the Chief Minister and Section 4(1)(a) of the 1981 Act, permits a Minister to retain his residence for 15 days after he/she demits his/her office. In view of the above special provisions made, the Chief Minister is not entitled to privileges and protection as are available to the President of India and the Vice-President of India, who are entitled to an official residence for life - there is a statutory provision which relates to salaries and perquisites to be given to the ministers, including the Chief Minister. The 1981 Act is a statute enacted by Respondent No. 1-State under its power Under Article 164 read with Entry 40 of the List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Thus, there is a statutory provision with regard to perquisites to be given to the ministers, including the Chief Minister Under Section 4 of the said Act, which has been reproduced hereinabove. The said Act provides that all the ministers are entitled to official residence without payment of any rent and they are also entitled to occupy the said official residence for 15 days even after completion of their term. Thus the statutory provision is to the effect that the Chief Minister can continue to occupy the official accommodation for a further period of 15 days after completion of his/her term. The 1997 Rules, which permit the former Chief Ministers to occupy government bungalows for life cannot be said to be valid. In the circumstances, Respondent No. 1 cannot permit any former Chief Minister to occupy any government bungalow or any government accommodation after 15 days from the date on which his term comes to an end. Allotment of bungalow to private trusts or societies - HELD THAT - Allotment of government property to someone without adequate market rent, in absence of any special statutory provision, would also be bad in law because the State has no right to fritter away government property in favour of private persons or bodies without adequate consideration and therefore, all such allotments, which have been made in absence of any statutory provision cannot be upheld. If any allotment was not made in accordance with a statutory provision at the relevant time, it must be discontinued and must be treated as cancelled and the State shall take possession of such premises as soon as possible and at the same time, the State should also recover appropriate rent in respect of such premises which had been allotted without any statutory provision. The government bungalows allotted to the Respondents is held to be bad in law and the concerned Respondents shall hand over possession of the bungalows occupied by them within two months from today and the Respondent-Government shall also recover appropriate rent from the occupants of the said bungalows for the period during which they were in unauthorized occupation of the said bungalows - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition and locus standi of the petitioner.
2. Legality and validity of the Ex-Chief Ministers Residence Allotment Rules, 1997.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Maintainability of the Writ Petition and Locus Standi of the Petitioner
The Court addressed whether the petitioner, a society formed by retired civil servants, journalists, and other residents of Uttar Pradesh, had the standing to file the writ petition. The petitioner challenged the validity of the 1997 Rules, arguing that the allotment of government bungalows to former Chief Ministers was unconstitutional and illegal, especially given the acute shortage of government premises. The Court referenced the case "Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.) Sindri and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1981) 1 SCC 568," which established that citizens or organizations with a special interest in the subject matter have the right to challenge administrative actions. The Court concluded that the petitioner had locus standi, as the petition was filed without any oblique motive and addressed a just and proper cause.

Issue 2: Legality and Validity of the Ex-Chief Ministers Residence Allotment Rules, 1997
The Court examined whether the 1997 Rules were valid or contrary to the Uttar Pradesh Ministers (Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1981 (the 1981 Act). The 1981 Act, enacted under Article 164 of the Constitution, governs the salaries and allowances of ministers, including the Chief Minister, and allows them to retain their official residence for 15 days after demitting office. The 1997 Rules, however, allowed former Chief Ministers to occupy government bungalows for life, which the Court found to be in direct contravention of the 1981 Act.

The Court noted that the 1997 Rules were executive instructions and not statutory provisions. It emphasized that statutory provisions always prevail over executive instructions. The Court also rejected the argument that former Chief Ministers constituted a separate class deserving special treatment, pointing out that other constitutional post holders like Governors, Chief Justices, and Union Ministers are not given such privileges after their tenure ends.

The Court further addressed the issue of security, stating that it is the obligation of the Union of India to provide accommodation to individuals with 'Z' plus security, not the state government. The Court found that many former Chief Ministers already had other official accommodations, making the allotment of additional government bungalows improper.

The Court also ruled against the allotment of government bungalows to private trusts or organizations, noting that these allotments were made without any statutory provision and often at nominal rents, adversely affecting the state exchequer. The Court emphasized that public property cannot be disposed of without adequate consideration.

Conclusion:
The Court held that the 1997 Rules were invalid as they were not in consonance with the 1981 Act. It ruled that former Chief Ministers could not occupy government bungalows beyond 15 days after their term ends. The Court also directed that all government bungalows allotted to private trusts or organizations without statutory backing be vacated, and appropriate rent be recovered for the period of unauthorized occupation. The petition was allowed, and the 1997 Rules were declared bad in law.