Jammu: The division bench of the High Court of J&K & Ladakh expressed displeasure over the UT government’s stance in allowing 49 politicians to stay put in ministerial bungalows in Jammu and Kashmir.
In a significant order on PIL seeking eviction of former ministers, MLAs from ministerial bungalows, the Division Bench of High Court of J&K & Ladakh (Jammu) comprising Chief Justice N. Kotishwar Singh and Justice Puneet Gupta directed the UT administration to apprise the court as to the nature of the accommodation provided to Ex. Ministers/MLAs and former bureaucrats as also the reasons for doing so by the next date of hearing.
The Division Bench at the outset observed that it had perused the report submitted by the UT administration in sealed cover. The court expressed displeasure on the report filed by the respondents while observing that “the report, however, does not address the issue which has been raised before this court, as to whether a person who is entitled to security cover would also be entitled to government accommodation as these are the two separate issues.”
These court directions were passed in the much-publicised PIL (No. 17/2020) highlighting unauthorised occupation of ministerial bungalows by the ex-ministers/MLAs at Jammu and Srinagar. The PIL seeks directions to the Estates department to ensure the eviction of the “illegal occupants”.
When this PIL came up for hearing, Advocate Sheikh Shakeel Ahmed with advocates Supriya Chouhan and Mohammad Zulkarnain Choudhary appearing for the petitioner, drew attention of the Division Bench towards the decision of the High Court rendered by a Division Bench on 26.12.2022 (in CM Nos. 7467/2022 & 7468/2022 in WP (C) PIL No. 17/2020), whereby it has been clearly held that the security assessment and entitlement to government accommodation are two different issues and cannot be intermingled.
Advocate S. S. Ahmed vehemently argued that as per the earlier decision of the Division Bench of the High Court, the inference which can be drawn is that while because of certain threat perception security cover can be granted to a person, it is not necessary that the person has to be provided the government accommodation also, which was also the stand of the administration in the aforesaid case.
Advocate S. S. Ahmed, appearing for petitioner, also submitted that there is no requirement in law for the government to provide accommodation as well to a person who is being provided a security cover.
He further submitted that even if accommodation was required to be provided in exceptional circumstances, the accommodation to be provided to a former chief minister/minister or a retired bureaucrat cannot be the same after his ceasing to occupy the office as he was occupying when he was in office.
Advocate S. S. Ahmed also referred to the RTI information received from Estates department wherein it was divulged that on December 21, 2018, the Deputy Director Estates, Jammu issued eviction notices to former Deputy CM Kavinder Gupta, Bali Bhagat (former health minister), Sunil Kumar (former minister) and others whereby all of them were directed to surrender their ministerial bungalows by or before December 21, 2018 and in default, the Estates department would initiate eviction proceedings under rules including charging of penal rent as described under SOP notified vide Government order No.99-Est of 2018 dated 15.10.2018.
Ahmed further submitted that till date, the unauthorised occupants have not vacated the ministerial bungalows nor has the Estates department initiated eviction proceedings against the unauthorised occupants.
Ahmed further highlighted that the Estates department has been selective in carrying out evictions of the politicians as 107 political persons were evicted from government accommodations at Jammu. He further submitted that the ex-ministers/ex-legislators belonging to a particular political party having access to the corridors of power, have not been picked up for eviction drive.
After considering the submissions of Advocate S S Ahmed, the Division Bench headed by Chief Justice N. Kotishwar Singh observed that “the report which has been submitted before us does not show any reason why the persons have been given the official accommodation, though they may require security cover. We, therefore, would like to know from the administration as to the nature of the accommodation provided to these persons and the reasons for doing so by the next date.”
Given the importance of the matter, the Division Bench directed the Registry to re-notify the instant PIL on July 19, 2023.
