9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 1293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... retain house for another one year. Dhar submitted another representation on 18.6.2007 to allow him to retain house allotted to him on a nominal licence fee till the circumstances prevailing in Jammu & Kashmir improve and the Government makes it possible for him to return to his native place. 3. Dhar was served with a notice under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant) Act, 1971 For short, the 'Act'. An order for eviction against Dhar was passed but was stayed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi. An objection was raised of territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi Court. Dhar withdrew his appeal and filed it in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad which was dismissed on 19.08.2009. Such orders were the subject matter of challenge before the learned High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the civil writ petition, which was allowed on 24.10.2010. 4. The learned Single Bench relied upon an order passed by this Court in J.L. Koul v. State of J & K (2010) 1 SCC 371. It was held, that it is not possible for Dhar to return to his own State and that due to which order of eviction shall be kept in abeyance, although the Appellants are at libe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refers to the judgment of this Court reported as Lok Prahari (I) v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2016) 8 SCC 389 wherein the executive instructions termed as Ex-Chief Ministers Residence Allotment Rules, 1997 were found to be illegal and Lok Prahari (II) v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2018) 6 SCC 1 wherein an Act enacted by the Uttar Pradesh Government regularising the allotment of the Government houses to the Ex-Chief Ministers was set aside. Reference was also made to judgments of this Court reported as S.D. Bandi v. Divisional Traffic Officer, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. (2013) 12 SCC 631 and Shiv Sagar Tiwari v. Union of India and Ors. (1997) 1 SCC 444. 8. Mr. Handoo, the learned Counsel for the Respondent referred to a judgment by learned Division Bench of High Court of Delhi reported as Union of India and Ors. v. Vijay Mam. The order of the learned Single Bench which was the subject matter of appeal in which it was inter alia ordered that Union shall provide alternative accommodation to the Petitioner and his or her family anywhere in Delhi but can be even in NCR region, subject to payment of normal license fee. The learned Division Bench was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heme specifically for such retired employees like the Respondents and in such a scheme, it can specify the terms and conditions on which such persons would be entitled to rehabilitate/alternate residence, which may include the term that these Respondents or their family members do not have any residence in any part of the country. It would also be open to the Government to specify the nature of accommodation to which such retired Government servants would be entitled to or the place where they would be rehabilitated which may not necessarily be in Delhi but can be even in the NCR region. After the scheme is framed, the cases of the Respondents can be scrutinized in terms of that scheme and those not found eligible for rehabilitation in terms thereof can be ousted from the present accommodation. Subject to our observations made immediately above, the appeals are hereby dismissed with costs. 9. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and find that the orders of the High Court are unsustainable. In Shiv Sagar Tiwari, the large- -scale allotment of Government houses made out of turn in eleven categories was examined under the Allotment of Government Residences (General Pool in D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c question to be determined was whether the allotment given to an employee was on out-of-turn basis or not. In case it were to be so, it is apparent that unless an exception is made, the allottee has no right to stay, no right to occupy the premises. The hearing given by us on two occasions brought home eloquently to us that the out-of-turn allottees, who were notified and had appeared, had two principal contentions to advance -- the same being the plea not to evict either on the ground of serious illness of one or the other close relatives, or to include them in the functional category. Nothing else could have really been pleaded not to evict them. These two aspects have been adequately borne in mind by us as would appear from the aforesaid discussion. xxx xxx xxx 95. Finally, we hope that coming years would not see any scam or misuse of power in making allotments of government quarters. The trust which is reposed in this context on high public functionaries would be discharged, we are sure, only to advance the object of providing of suitable conditions of work to government employees so that the Government is run on even keel; and shelter, which is a very pressing necessity o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the self realisation among the unauthorized occupants. The matter is disposed of with the above terms and no order is required in I. As for impleadment and intervention. 11. The Uttar Pradesh Government has framed Ex-Chief Ministers Residence Allotment Rules, 1997. This Court in Lok Prahari (I) set aside the allotment of houses to the former Chief Ministers and Ministers to retain government accommodation even after they demit office. This Court has approved the judgment in S.D. Bandi's case, holding as under: 37. If we look at the position of other constitutional post holders like Governors, Chief Justices, Union Ministers, and Speaker, etc. all of these persons hold only one "official residence" during their tenure. The Respondents have contended that in a federal set-up, like the Union, the State has also power to provide residential bungalow to the former Chief Minister. The above submission of the Respondent State cannot be accepted for the reason that the 1981 Act does not make any such provision and the 1997 Rules, which are only in the nature of executive instructions and contrary to the provisions of the 1981 Act, cannot be acted upon. 38. Moreover, the position ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve, is abhorrent to the constitutional ethos. xxx xxx xxx 36. In the light of the above views, the allocation of government bungalows to constitutional functionaries enumerated in Section 4(3) of the 1981 Act after such functionaries demit public office(s) would be clearly subject to judicial review on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This is particularly so as such bungalows constitute public property which by itself is scarce and meant for use of current holders of public offices. The above is manifested by the institution of Section 4-A in the 1981 Act by the Amendment Act, 1997 (8 of 1997). The questions relating to allocation of such property, therefore, undoubtedly, are questions of public character and, therefore, the same would be amenable for being adjudicated on the touchstone of reasonable classification as well as arbitrariness. (Emphasis supplied) 13. In view of the judgments referred above, the Government accommodation could not have been allotted to a person who had demitted office. No exception was carved out even in respect of the persons who held Constitutional posts at one point of time. It was held that the Government accommodatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r an unlimited period. The direction to allow a retired government servant to retain government accommodation for an indefinite period, to say the least, is a distribution of state largesse without any policy of the State. A Section of the migrants cannot be treated as preferential citizens to give them the right to shelter at the cost of millions of other citizens who do not have a roof over their heads. The right of shelter to the displaced person is satisfied when accommodation had been provided in the transit accommodation. Such right of shelter does not and cannot extend to provide a government accommodation. 16. J.L. Koul is a case, accepting the rehabilitation scheme framed by the State authorities based on which appropriate accommodation was provided to 31 Appellants and was given accommodation which was in their possession. Such direction was in terms of Article 142 of the Constitution. This Court in a judgment reported as Indian Bank v. ABS Marine Products (P) Ltd. (2006) 5 SCC 72 held that the High Courts repeatedly followed a direction issued Under Article 142, by treating it as the law declared by this Court. It was held that the Courts should therefore be careful to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rdingly. There is no order as to costs. The tenor of the said order, which is not preceded by any reasons or consideration of any principle, demonstrates that it was an order made Under Article 142 of the Constitution on the peculiar facts of that case. Law declared by this Court is binding Under Article 141. Any direction given on special facts, in exercise of jurisdiction Under Article 142, is not a binding precedent. Therefore, the decision in Govinda Rajulu [1986 Supp SCC 651 : 1987 SCC (L & S) 71] cannot be the basis for claiming relief similar to what was granted in that case. A similar contention was negatived by the Constitution Bench in Umadevi(3) [ (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L & S) 753]: (SCC p. 39, para 46) The fact that in certain cases the court had directed regularisation of the employees involved in those cases cannot be made use of to found a claim based on legitimate expectation. 18. Therefore, the direction issued in J.L. Kaul that the retirees shall continue to possess the accommodation in their possession is a direction Under Article 142 of the Constitution. This Court had accepted the rehabilitation scheme finalized by the State Government. 19. Dhar was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
