1. The petitioners belong to the Indian National Congress Party (INC) and are former Union Cabinet Ministers and now are Members of Rajya Sabha. They have filed the petitions impugning notices, both dated 5th May, 2015, of the Directorate of Estate (DoE), Ministry of Urban Development (MUD), Government of India, cancelling the allotment of Type-VIII, Bungalow No.22, Akbar Road, New Delhi and Bungalow No.7, Moti Lal Nehru Marg, New Delhi in their respective names and allotting Type-VII, Bungalow No.84, Lodhi Estate, New Delhi and Bungalow No.AB-14, Mathura Road, New Delhi to the petitioners respectively.

2. Vide order dated 5th June, 2015 of the Vacation Judge, notice of both the petitions was issued and in the interregnum operation of the impugned notices dated 5th May, 2015 stayed.

3. Counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents No.1 to 3 i.e. Union of India, DoE, Estate Officer as well as by respondent No.4 Rajya Sabha Secretariat (RSS) and rejoinders to the counter affidavit of respondents No.1 to 3 has been filed.

4. The senior counsel for the petitioners, learned ASG for the respondents No.1 to 3 and the senior counsel for the respondent No.4 RSS were heard on 2nd July, 2015 and judgment reserved.

5. The senior counsel for the petitioners argued with respect to W.P.(C) No.5918/2015 stating that the position in the other writ petition is identical/similar. It was argued, i) that the petitioner therein was elected to the Rajya Sabha from Haryana in January-February, 2014; ii) that consequent to approval of the competent authority, the DoE under the MUD vide letter dated 10th March, 2014 placed General Pool Bungalow No.7, Moti Lal Nehru Marg, New Delhi in the Rajya Sabha Pool on revert-back basis, for specific allotment to the petitioner in her capacity as a Member of Rajya Sabha as regular accommodation; iii) that on 11th April, 2014, the RSS allotted the said bungalow to the petitioner in her capacity as a Member of Rajya Sabha, till her retirement or her ceasing to be a Member of the House; iv) that on 26th May, 2014, upon composition of the 16th Lok Sabha, a new Union Council of Ministers was sworn in; v) that though the term of the petitioner in the Rajya Sabha is till 2020 but the DoE had vide impugned notice dated 5th May, 2015 unilaterally cancelled the allotment of the said Type-VIII bungalow, without notice to the petitioner, and allotted Type-VII bungalow to the petitioner.

6. The senior counsel for the petitioners contended: (a) that the purpose of constituting a Rajya Sabha Pool of Accommodation separately from the General Pool is frustrated if the DoE under the MUD without permission of the House Committee of the Rajya Sabha which alone can cancel the allotment of a house made from Rajya Sabha Pool of Accommodation, is permitted to cancel the allotment; that the intent of creating a different pool of accommodation for Legislature was to protect it from the Executive;

(b) that once a General Pool house has been vested in the Rajya Sabha Pool of Accommodation, the DoE under the MUD cannot cancel the allotment thereof made by the RSS; that a minister cannot act qua a pool house belonging to the Legislature without the consent of the House Committee dealing with that pool;

(c) photocopy of Chapter XVII-C titled House Committee, of ‘Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council of States’ was handed over to show that there has to be a House Committee of 10 members nominated by the Chairman with the function inter alia of dealing with all matters relating to residential accommodation of the Members and it was contended that the cancellation of a house allotted to a member of the Rajya Sabha by virtue of such membership can only be with the consent of the said House Committee and which House Committee had not even been approached;

(d) that allotment of a house is a perquisite of a Rajya Sabh