Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.

This appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 6th of October, 2018 raises a question more of propriety than of legality involving the retention of a bungalow by an elected representative of the people, presently occupying the status of the leader of opposition in the Bihar Legislative Assembly.

2. This Court is called upon to pronounce upon an issue which is more of a crisis of identity than of any ideology involving protection of rights. The issue appears to be more of accommodating diverse ambitions of occupancy of Bungalows in this great march of democracy. The contestants in this case have set up their competing claims which is founded more on convenience and expediency and in reality not for any laudable public purpose or for upholding majesty or rule of law. If one examines the issue on plain common sense then the issue is what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The facts of the case remind us of the Latin maxim enunciated by the Roman thinker, Tacitus, “Rebus cunctis inest quidam velut orbis”, which means in all things there is a kind of law of cycles. This legal maxim can be best illustrated by understanding the movement of a pendulum of a clock that always swings back. It further reminds us of what Benjamin Disraeli said in his speech in the House of Commons on 24th January, 1860 “how much easier it is to be critical than to be correct”. The rival claims in this dispute do not even seem to be a matter serious enough verifiable in law yet the ambitions resulting in a contest have been given a legal framework which we are obligated to answer. The appellant and the Respondent No. 5 are contesting for a sanctuary with Government facilities which they know would not be a matter of permanent occupancy, yet the Court has to discharge its obligations under the law.

3. The appellant upon being elected as a Member of the Legislative Assembly in the 2015 Assembly Elections came to be part of a coalition government that was formed immediately thereafter and the appellant was inducted as a Deputy Chief Minister in the newly formed Government. Vide office order dated 11th of December, 2015 issued by the Estate Officer, Bungalow No. 5, Deshratna Marg, Patna was allotted to the appellant as his official quarter on the basis of a decision taken by the Gazetted House Allotment Committee under the Bihar Government Premises Allotment Administration Pool Rules, 1996 on 5th of December, 2015.

4. The coalition Government in which the appellant was a Deputy Chief Minister was dissolved on 26th July, 2017 and a new Government was formed.

5. The appellant came to be elected as the leader of the opposition after the formation of the new Government in which the Respondent No. 5 came to be inducted as a Deputy Chief Minister. The Respondent No. 5 was till then the leader of the opposition and was occupying Bungalow No. 1, Polo Road, Patna. Thus, the position occupied by the appellant came to be occupied by the Respondent No. 5 and vice versa with the change of Government.

6. The allotment of a house was initially governed by the provisions of Section 2A of the of The Bihar Ministers’ Salaries and Allowances Act, 1953 which provides for under:-

“2A. Residence of Ministers-(i) Each Minister shall be entitled, without payment of rent, to the use of a furnished residence throughout his term of office and for a period of one month immediately thereafter at Patna or at such other place as the State Government may, from time to time, for the purposes of this Act, declare to be the headquarters of the Government for such period as may be specified in such declaration.

(ii) No charge shall fall on the Minister personnal in respect of the maintenance of such residence.

(iii) The expenditure on furnishing and maintenance of the residence provided under this section shall be on such scale and subject to such monetary limits as the State Government may, by rules, determine.

Explanation- For the purpose