SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(SC) 592

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANIL R. DAVE, N.V. RAMANA, R. BANUMATHI, JJ.
Lok Prahari – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. – Respondents
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.657 OF 2004
Decided On : 01-08-2016

IMPORTANT POINTS
The 1997 Rules, which permit the former Chief Ministers to occupy government bungalows for life cannot be said to be valid.
PIL can be maintained by anybody not having any oblique motive and espousing a just and proper cause.
Ex-Chief Minister is not entitled to privileges and protection available to the President of India and the Vice-President of India, who are entitled to an official residence for life.
Providing proper infrastructure for persons provided with Z security is the responsibility of the Centre and not the State.
When Rules and regulations or executive institutions are contrary to any statutory provision, statutory provision would prevail.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 32 – PIL – Petitioner society comprising retired civil servants, journalists and other persons who are residents of the State of U.P. challenging validity of 1997 Rules – Government bungalows allotted to former Chief Ministers under 1997 Rules – On the other hand there is an acute shortage of government premises – Petition filed without any oblique motive and for a just and proper cause – Held, petitioner has locus standi to file the present petition. (Para 25, 27)

       (1981) 1 SCC 568; (1981) Supp SCC 87 – Relied upon

       (b) Uttar Pradesh Ministers (Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1981 – Section 4 – “Minister” includes the Chief Minister – Section 4(1)(a) permits a Minister to retain his residence for 15 days after demitting office – Held, ex-Chief Minister not entitled to privileges and protection available to the President of India and the Vice-President of India, who are entitled to an official residence for life. (Para 31)

       (c) Ex-Chief Ministers Residence Allotment Rules, 1997 – Rule 4 and 6 – Contention that providing Government bungalows necessary for persons provided with Z security, rejected – Government of India providing Z security provides proper infrastructure – It is responsibility of Central Government and not the State Government – 1997 Rules unreasonably giving largesse only to former Chief Ministers – Even otherwise many of former Chief Ministers being Member of Parliament, Governor or Central Minister providing accommodation by State cannot be termed proper and reasonable. (Para 32, 33)

       (d) Uttar Pradesh Ministers (Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1981 – Section 4(1)(a) – Act not providing for residential bungalows to former Chief Ministers – Ex-Chief Ministers Residence Allotment Rules, 1997, not being statutory and contrary to the Act cannot be acted upon – Contention that in federal set up, like the Union, the State has also power to provide residential bungalow to the former Chief Minister – Cannot be accepted. (Para 34)

       (e) Ex-Chief Ministers Residence Allotment Rules, 1997 – Validity – Chief Minister and Ministers cannot be treated on different footing after demitting office – Further, no other constitutional dignitary given facility of residential accommodation after demitting office – Held, 1997 Rules not fair and contrary to section 4(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Ministers (Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1981 – 1997 Rules held invalid. (Para 35, 36)

       (2013) 12 SCC 631 – Relied upon

       (1997) 1 SCC 444 – Distinguished

       (f) Interpretation of statutes – Rules and regulations or executive institutions contrary to any statutory provision – Statutory provision would prevail, (Para 41)

       Facts of the case:

       This PIL raises the issue of government bungalows occupied by former Chief Ministers of the State of Uttar Pradesh.

       Finding of the Court;

       The 1997 Rules, which permit the former Chief Ministers to occupy government bungalows for life cannot be said to be valid.

       Allotment of government bungalows to societies/trusts/organizations are not justified.

       Result: Petition allowed.

JUDGMENT

ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. A short but serious and significant issue has been raised in this public interest litigation, which pertains to government bungalows occupied by former Chief Ministers of the State of Uttar Pradesh.

2. The Petitioner is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act with objects pertaining to public welfare, etc. and the petition has been filed through its General Secretary, who appeared in person. He is a former officer of All India Services and has ventilated grievances which are definitely serious one, touching the State exchequer and conduct of the persons who were Chief Ministers of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The main submission made in the petition is that several former Chief Ministers had occupied Government bungalows of Type VI even after demitting office of the Chief Minister for several years without any right to retain the same, which is not only immoral and illegal, but it also does not befit persons who were Chief Ministers of the State.

3. At the time when the petition was admitted on 13th January, 2006, this Court had passed the following Order:

“The challenge in this petition is to the validity of Ex-Chief Ministers Residence Allotment Rules, 1997. The petitioner claims it to be illegal, malafides and colourable exercise of power. It is also claimed that the Rules, which are non-statutory, could not have been framed in the light of the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Ministers (Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1981.

On the other hand, it has been, inter alia, contended on behalf of the State that in the federal structure, there is no bar if provision is made for allotment of residential accommodation to ex-Chief Ministers of the State. It is also contended that the matter deserves to be examined further in the light of the provisions of the President’s (Emoluments and Pension) Act, 1951. The further contention is that the former Presidents and the Prime Ministers are also allotted residential accommodation after they cease to hold those positions.

In our view, the writ petition raises important questions, which require deeper consideration. Accordingly, while issuing Rule, we direct that notice be issued to the Union of India and other State Governments/Union Territories.”

Thus, we have to examine whether the provisions of Ex-Chief Ministers Residence Allotment Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1997 Rules’) are valid or contrary to the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Ministers (Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘the 1981 Act’).

4. As several former Chief Ministers had occupied government bungalows, a petition, in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation, being Writ Petition No.1313 (M/S) of 1996 was filed before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by Janhit Sangathan, a registered Society of retired senior Civil Servants. At the time when the said petition was filed, there were no Rules or Regulations permitting former Chief Ministers to occupy government bungalows.

5. In the aforestated circumstances, the State of U.P. i.e. respondent no.1 framed the 1997 Rules during the pendency of the said petition. The 1997 Rules are not statutory Rules and they are in the nature of executive instructions. The 1997 Rules provide that former Chief Ministers should be provided government bungalows for their residence for the life and upon their death, the family members occupying the bungalow should hand over vacant possession of the bungalow within 3 months from the date of the death of the former Chief Minister and failing which they would be liable to pay penal rent. The 1997 Rules do not provide for allotment of bungalows either to the family members of the former Chief Ministers or to any Trust or Society concerned with any former Chief Minister.

6. As the 1997 Rules were framed during the pendency of Writ Petition No.1313 (M/S) of 1996, the aforestated Writ Petition was amended s































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top