Back
2011 Supreme(Del) 168
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
ANUP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
W.P.(C) 6545/2010 & CM No. 12957/2010
Decided on : February 11, 2011
Mr. Amarendra Sharan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Somesh Jha, Mr. Ashutosh Jha and Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Advocates.
Mr. H.P. Raval, ASG with Mr. B.V. Niren, CGSC and Mr. Anirudh Sharma and for UOI. Mr. Vijay K. Sondhi with Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate for R-3. CONT.CAS(C) 820/2010
Headnote:A) Allotment of Government houses in New Delhi in General Pool – Limited to Government employees and unless for special reasons recorded in an order by CCA, cannot be allotted to the Members of Parliament - Writ petition filed by Government servants challenging the allotment ov such a house to R-3, a Member of Parliament - At the time first hearing the writ petition, status quo order issued regarding possession and Government Pleader directed to submit the legal position with regard o the allotment of the houses in the case concerned. – On the next date of hearing time sought by the Government Pleader which was granted subject to extending the status quo till such next date – Court not held next date as the Judge was not sitting on that date but extension of status quo orders was not recorded by officers of the court – Before the next date of hearing by the Judge, Respondent No:2 gave possession of the House to the Respondent No:3 – Plea of the Respondent No:2 that he was not informed by the counsel with regard to status quo orders was refused and he was reprimanded by the court in the contempt petition – Order of the Respondent No:2 set aside – However keeping in view the equity three months time given for shifting the Respondent No:3 to the appropriate quarters meant for Members of Parliament. Directions also issued so as to considering the application of the writ petitioner for grant of the quarters as per his entitlement.
1. The writ petition and the connected contempt petition concern the Petitioner?s entitlement to Government accommodation. The case of the Petitioner is that although he was at serial No. 1 in the General Pool category and was entitled to a 5A type house either at Ashoka Road or Mahadev Road, the accommodation at 60, Ashoka Road which fell vacant was allotted to Respondent No. 3, who is a Member of Parliament („MP?) in the Lok Sabha. The writ petition has been filed challenging the said allotment made in favour of Respondent No. 3.
2. This Court by an order dated 6th October 2010 directed that in regard to accommodation at 60, Ashoka Road “till the next date of hearing, status quo as regards possession will be maintained.” However, on 19th November 2010 Respondent No. 3 was put in possession of the said accommodation. The Petitioner then filed the aforementioned contempt petition alleging wilful disobedience by the Respondents of this Court?s order dated 6th October 2010.
3. The Petitioner was appointed as a Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax on 24th October 2004. The Petitioner was transferred from the Commissionerate of Customs, Meerut-II to the Commissionerate Central Excise, Delhi-I on 8th March 2010. In terms of the Allotment of Government Residence (General Pool in Delhi) Rules, 1963 („General Pool Rules?), the Petitioner was entitled to C-II type General Pool accommodation. He applied for such accommodation on 11th March 2010 and was granted registration No. 10148364 on 12th March 2010. On 7th April 2010 the Petitioner made a representation to the Ministry of Urban Development („MoUD?), Respondent No. 1, stating that he was willing to accept the accommodation below his entitlement, i.e. a D-II accommodation, provided it was available on the ground floor. He also pointed out that he was suffering from serious heart disease as well as problems in the knee joint because of which he was advised not to climb stairs. He prayed for an out-of-turn allotment on medical grounds. The Petitioner has enclosed with the writ petition copies of his representations dated 7th April 2010, 20th April 2010, 12th May 2010 and 19th May 2010. He states that he did not receive any reply to the representations.
4. The Petitioner states that he was in the wait list at serial No. 1 for a General Pool accommodation both at Mahadev Road as well as Ashoka Road. Yet, on 22nd May 2010 an order was issued allotting the General Pool house at 7, Mahadev Road in favour of an MP although not entitled to such allotment. Thereafter when another D-II type accommodation on the Ground Floor at 60 Ashoka Road fell vacant, it was allotted by the Directorate of Estates, Respondent No. 2 on 2nd June 2010 to another MP, i.e. Respondent No.3. herein. This was however not known to the Petitioner at that time and he sent further reminders on 30th July 2010 and 30th August 2010 to Respondent No. 2. He pointed out that a D-II type category accommodation was available at 60, Ashoka Road since the officer who had been staying in the said accommodation had retired on 31st March 2010. The Petitioner relied on the order passed by the Supreme Court 13th July 2006 in S.D. Bandi v. Divisional Traffic Officer, KSRTC (Civil Appeal No. 4064 of 2004 ) (hereafter the S.D.Bandi case) which contained an observation to the effect that the occupation of General Pool houses by MPs was uauthorised. The Petitioner states that he learnt of the allotment made to Respondent No. 3 on 19th September 2010 and made a further representation on 20th September 2010. In the circumstances, the present petition was filed on 23rd September 2010 seeking quashing of the order dated 2nd June 2010 passed by Respondent No. 2 allotting the accommodation at 60 Ashoka Road to Respondent No. 3 and for a direction to Respondent No. 2 to allot the said accommodation to the Petitioner Proceedings before this Court.
5. At the very first hearing on 27th September 2010 while directing notice
