ORDER

Shukla, J. -- 1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 1.6.2020 passed by the respondent No.3 whereby the allotment of Government accommodation/House No. D-14, 74 Bungalows, Bhopal made in view of the petitioner has been cancelled.

2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner won the Katni, Vidhan Sabha Area- 91 Seat in the elections of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Madhya Pradesh which had taken place in the year 2018. The petitioner being a MLA was entitled to government house/accommodation by the State Government. In furtherance to the same, the petitioner was allotted House No. D-14, 74 Bungalows, Bhopal vide allotment order dated 20.3.2020. The period of allotment was co-existent with the tenure of the petitioner as MLA. However, by the impugned order, the said allotment has been cancelled without assigning any reason and the order is in violation of the judgment passed by the apex Court in Kranti Associates Private Limited v. Masood Ahmed Khan and others [(2010) 9 SCC 496]. Alternatively, the petitioner has also prayed a direction to provide alternative accommodation at Bhopal.

3. The respondents have filed the reply and submitted that the petitioner was allotted Quarter No. D-14, 74 Bungalows, Bhopal which comes under the General Pool Quarter and is not a Quarter which comes under the pool of Vidhan Sabha. It is further stated that even under Rule 10 of Allotment Rules, 2000, the allottee is also required to execute bond along with 2 months license fees in advance. Rule 10(9)(Kha) is clear with regard to execution of bond and deposition of 2 months license fees. If the quarter is being allotted to some Social Worker, Political Party, recognized personality thus even assuming that petitioner is having any locus to allottee under the General Pool by invoking Rule 10 then also, he has not fulfilled the Condition No. 10(9)(b) of the Rules 2000. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for the allotment of the quarter because the same is not under the Vidhan Sabha Pool. For the alternative prayer, the petitioner has not submitted any application for allotment of the quarter and therefore, the same could not be considered.

4. The aforesaid facts have been disputed by the petitioner by way of filing rejoinder.

5. In terms of Rule 13, Chapter-4 of Government Allotment Rules, a plain reading of Rule 13 demonstrate that the houses falling under the Vidhan Sabha Pool can be exchanged with the houses under the General Pool. The petitioner has further disputed the non-execution of the order dated 20.3.2020. It is submitted that the petitioner has taken possession of the said house on 20.5.2020. The delay in taking possession of the said bungalow was only on account of nation-wide lockdown due to the spread of the Pandemic. The petitioner also submitted that he has already deposited a sum of Rs.36,000/- as rent of the accommodation on 12.11.2020.

6. In the additional reply, the learned counsel for the State insisted that as per Rule 10(9)(Kha), before taking the possession, agreement under proforma 4 is required to be executed within two months of of advance license fees. In the present case, no order from the office of Director, Estate (Sampada Sanchnalay) Bhopal has been issued. However, when a query was made by this Court that whether procedure was insisted in respect of other similarly situated allottees, learned counsel for the State stated that he has no further instruction in this regard.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The impugned order reads as under :-

^*e/;izns’k 'kklu

x`g ¼lkekU;½ foHkkx

e=kay; oYyHk Hkou Hkksiky

@@vkns’k@@

Hkksiky fnukad 01@06@2020

Øekad 792@1240@2020@nks&,¼3½ jkT; 'kklu ,rr }kjk ekuuh; foèkk;d Jh fot;jk?kosUnz flag ftyk dVuh fo/kkulHkk {ks= 91 dks vkoafVr 'kkldh; vkokl dzekad Mh&1474 caxyk Hkksiky rRdky izHkko ls fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA