IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J.
Ajay Kumar Vashist, D. I. G. – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 10834 of 2022 & CM APPL. 31467 of 2022, CM APPL. 19564 of 2023
Decided On : 18-08-2023
Cancellation Notice - Official Accommodation - Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - [3-B(2), 3-B(3), 7(3-A)] - The court discussed the misrepresentations made by the petitioner in his application for official accommodation, the relevant provisions of the Central Government General Pool Residential Accommodation Rules, 2017, and the retrospective cancellation of the allotment based on misrepresentations.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Deputy Inspector General with the CRPF, sought setting-aside of a Cancellation Notice and an Order issued by the Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs, Government of India, regarding the cancellation of his official residential accommodation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had made misrepresentations in his application for official accommodation, which were material to the allotment process, and thus upheld the cancellation of the allotment and directed the petitioner to vacate the premises.
Issues: Misrepresentations in the petitioner's application for official accommodation, retrospective cancellation of the allotment, and the petitioner's entitlement to continued occupation of the premises.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that material misrepresentations made by the petitioner in his application for official accommodation vitiated his entitlement to such benefit, and thus upheld the cancellation of the allotment.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to vacate the premises within three months from the date of the order.
JUDGMENT
Anup Jairam Bhambhani J. By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is a Deputy Inspector General (`DIG') with the Central Reserve Police Force (`CRPF'), seeks setting-aside of Cancellation Notice dated 07.07.2022 issued by respondent No. 2/Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs, Government of India whereby the allotment of Quarter No. CG, Type-V(A), Block-10, Kidwai Nagar East, New Delhi, that the petitioner is presently occupying as his official residential accommodation has been cancelled. The petitioner also impugns Order dated 12.07.2022 issued by the Estate Officer under sections 3-B(2) and (3) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (`PP Act'), whereby the allottee and all persons in occupation of the subject premises were directed to vacate the same with immediate effect; and were also cautioned, that upon failure to do so, they would be liable to pay damages under section 7(3-A) of the PP Act.
2. Notice on this petition was issued on 19.07.2022. Respondent No. 2 has filed counter-affidavit dated 02.09.2022. Additionally, a counter-affidavit dated 20.04.2023 has also been filed by respondent No. 3/Director General, CRPF; which, as per oral submissions of learned counsel for respondent No. 2, has been adopted by respondent No. 1/Union of India.
3. Mr. Arvind Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that by way of the impugned cancellation notice, not only has the allotment of the subject premises been cancelled on illegal grounds, but of even greater concern is the fact that the cancellation has been made with retrospective effect from 17.01.2020; and the petitioner has been directed to immediately vacate the subject premises as well as pay damages for alleged unauthorized use and occupation thereof from the retrospective date.
4. Briefly, the genesis of the matter is that until 31.03.2014the petitioner was posted in Delhi and was serving as DIG, CRPF; whereafter he was transferred to Assam w.e.f. 31.03.2014. Subsequently, the petitioner was brought back and placed on deputation with the India Trade Promotion Organisation, New Delhi (`ITPO') w.e.f. 01.07.2015 where he was posted as General Manager (Security).
5. At the time when the petitioner was posted out of Delhi, he was occupying a Type-IV(S) accommodation; and since the posting to the North-Eastern region was a `non-family posting', he requested and was permitted to retain his accommodation in Delhi during the period when he was posted-out. The permission to retain the accommodation in Delhi was extended from time-to-time, the last extension having been granted vide letter dated 03.09.2019 issued by Directorate of Estates (`DoE').
6. Vide communication dated 26.07.2019 issued by the ITPO they informed the DoE that since the deputation period of the petitioner had been extended upto 30.06.2020; and since, as per the terms of his appointment on deputation he was not entitled to house rent allowance, the petitioner was required to be provided government accommodation. Based on the aforesaid letter sent by the ITPO, the petitioner also requested the DoE that his permission to retain his official accommodation be extended till 30.06.2020.
7. In response to the aforesaid letter dated 26.07.2019 issued by the ITPO, vide communication dated 03.09.2019, the DoE allowed the petitioner to retain the Type-IV(S) accommodation till 30.06.2020.
8. In the meantime, the petitioner filed an application dated 20.03.2019, requesting the DoE to upgrade his official accommodation from Type-IV(S) to Type-V(A); in response to which request the DoE upgraded his official accommodation from Type-IV(S) to Type-V(A) vide Communication/Allotment Letter dated 18.11.2019, with the date of allotment being 10.11.2019.
9. Shorn of unnecessary detail, the bone of contention today is that the DoE contends that the allotment of the upgraded Type-V(A) accommodation made to
Material misrepresentations made by an applicant in an application for official accommodation can vitiate the entitlement to such benefit.
The court affirmed the validity of Paragraph XXVI of SO No. 03/2015, emphasizing the importance of preventing unauthorized construction and maintaining harmonious relations in government quarters.
Unauthorized retention of govt. accommodation post-transfer/dismissal periods attracts damage charges per allotment rules; retrospective levy improper if license fee deducted.
Fraudulent actions disentitle a petitioner to equitable relief, and a prerogative writ will not issue where it would perpetuate a manifest illegality.
No one can benefit from their own wrongful act, and mis-declaration in securing an allotment renders it improper.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.