Patna High Court
Avanish Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 3 April, 2025
Author: P. B. Bajanthri
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri, Alok Kumar Sinha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.459 of 2021
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19359 of 2016
======================================================
Avanish Kumar Singh S/o Late Vindhyachal Singh Resident of Village-Jihuli,
P.S.-Patahi, District-East Champaran, Presently residing at Mohalla-
Chaudhary Tola, Ganga Vihar Colony P.S.-Sultanganj, Town and District-
Patna.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Building Construction
Department, Government of Bihar,
2. The Secretary, Building Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar,
3. The Executive Engineer, Tax Division, Building Construction Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Estate Officer, Building Construction Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
5. The Secretary, Bihar Legislative Assembly, Patna.
6. The Additional Secretary, Bihar Legislative Assembly, Patna.
7. The Secretary, Bihar Legislative Council, Patna.
8. The Additional Secretary, Bihar Legislative Council, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. P K Shahi, Advocate General
for the BLC : Mr. Aditya Prakash Sahay, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA)
Date : 03-04-2025
Heard the parties.
2. In the present appeal the appellant/petitioner has
challenged the order dated 13.01.2021 passed by learned Single
Judge in CWJC No.19359 of 2016 by which the writ application
filed by the appellant/petitioner was dismissed on the ground
Patna High Court L.P.A No.459 of 2021 dt.03-04-2025
2/22
that for claiming the same relief, the appellant/petitioner had
earlier filed CWJC No.19237 of 2015, which was withdrawn
unconditionally by the appellant/petitioner without seeking any
liberty to move afresh. Hence, the learned Single Judge was not
inclined to allow the appellant/petitioner to re-agitate the same
issue in the second writ petition bearing CWJC No.19359 of
2016. Being aggrieved with this order of the learned Single
Judge, the appellant/petitioner has filed the present LPA as
against the aforesaid order.
3. Considering the maintainability of a second writ
petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in similar
circumstances, the learned Single Judge rightly relied upon a
decision of the Apex Court, in the case of Joint Action
Committee of Air Line Pillots' Associations of India and
others vs. Director General of Civil Aviation and others
reported in (2011) 5 SCC 435 wherein at paragraph-12 and 13
of the said judgment, the Apex Court held and observed as
follows:
"12. The doctrine of election is based
on the rule of estoppel - the principle
that one cannot approbate and reprobate
inheres in it. The doctrine of estoppel by
election is one of the species of estoppels
in pais (or equitable estoppel), which is a
rule in equity. By that law, a person may
Patna High Court L.P.A No.459 of 2021 dt.03-04-2025
3/22
be precluded by his actions or conduct or
silence when it is his duty to speak, from
asserting a right which he otherwise
would have had. Taking inconsistent
pleas by a party makes its conduct far
from satisfactory. Further, the parties
should not blow hot and cold by taking
inconsistent stands and prolong
proceedings unnecessarily. ... ... ...
13. In view of the above, it is clearly
evident that some of the present
appellants had challenged CAR 2007,
wherein it had been submitted that AIC
28 of 1992 was based on better scientific
studies. The same remained in operation
for more than 17 years and no one had
even raised any grievance in respect of
its contents or application. However, it
appears that during the pendency of the
said writ petition, grievance of those
petitioners stood redressed and, thus,
they withdrew the writ petition. They did
not even ask the court to reserve their
right to file a fresh petition challenging
the same, in case the need arose, as
required in the principle enshrined in
Order 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908. Such a conduct of those appellants
in blowing hot and cold in the same
breath is not worth approval."
4. Recently also in the case of State Of Orissa and
Anr. vs Laxmi Narayan Das (Dead) through Legal
Representative and Ors. reported in (2023) 15 SCC 273, the
Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph-37 and 38 has held and
observed as follows:
Patna High Court L.P.A No.459 of 2021 dt.03-04-2025
4/22
"37. On the question, as to whether after the
withdrawal of a suit claiming the same relief
without having permission to institute fresh
one for the same relief, a writ petition will be
maintainable before the Court, the guidance
is available from the judgment of this Court in
M.J. Exporters Private Limited v. Union of
India and others(2021) 13 SCC 543, wherein
the principle of constructive res judicata was
applied. The case concerns a litigant who
sought to file a fresh writ petition after
withdrawal of the earlier writ petition filed
for the same relief without permission to file
fresh one. The Court held that the principles
contained in Order 23, Rule 1 CPC are
applicable even in writ proceedings. Para 15
thereof is extracted below:
"15.In these circumstances, we feel
that when this issue was raised and
abandoned in the first writ petition
which was dismissed as withdrawn, the
principles of constructive res judicata
which are laid down under Order 23
Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, and which principles are
extendable to writ proceedings as well
as held by this in Sarguja Transport
Service v. STAT, (1987) 1 SCC 5."
38. Having regard to the principles laid down
in M.J. Exporters Private Limited, in our
view, applying the principles of constructive
res judicata, the present writ petition filed by
the respondents after withdrawal of the civil
suit, was not maintainable, in the sense that it
ought not to have been entertained. In case
Patna High Court L.P.A No.459 of 2021 dt.03-04-2025
5/22
the respondents still wanted to justify filing of
the writ petition, they should have at least
disclosed complete facts and then justify filing
of the writ petition."
5. In view of the above settled position of law with
regard to maintainability of second writ petition when the first
writ has been withdrawn unconditionally without seeking any
liberty to move afresh, the second writ petition filed by the
appellant/petitioner bearing CWJC No.19359 of 2016 was not
maintainable in law and therefore, for this reason alone the
present appeal seeking interference in the order of the learned
Single Judge is without any merit and thus fit to be dismissed.
6. Even on merits, the appellant/petitioner does not
have any case for the reasons explained hereunder.
7. In the writ application filed by the
appellant/petitioner bearing CWJC No.19359 of 2016 the
appellant/petitioner had prayed for the following reliefs:-
i) For quashing of an order vide Letter
NO. 2001, dated 24.08.2016, issued with the
signature of the Executive Engineer, Tax,
Division, Building Construction Department
(Respondent no. 3) whereby and whereunder an
order for deduction of a sum of Rs. 20,98,757.00
(Twenty Lacs Ninety Eight Thousand and seven
fifty seven) only as house rent from this petitioner
has been issued, pursuant to a directive of the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.459 of 2021 dt.03-04-2025
6/22
Estate Officer (Respondent No. 4) issued vide
letter No. 6943 dated 20.07.2016, in view of the
fact that the petitioners had over stayed in a
quarter, earlier allotted to him in the capacity of
member, Bihar Legislative Assembly.
ii) For stay the realization of aforesaid
amount from this petitioner during pendency of
instant writ application, as the petitioner was
entitled to retain the said further, in the capacity
of member of "Rajya Vidhayee Adhyayan Ewam
Prasikshan Bureau (State Legislature Research
and Training Bureau), who was having similar
status as of a Member Legislative Assembly and
Member Legislative Council.
iii) For any other relief or reliefs, the
petitioner is entitled for.
8. In the writ application the petitioner had averred
that he was for the first time elected as a member of Bihar
Legislative Assembly from Dhaka Constituency, in an election
held in the year 1990. The petitioner was re-elected from the
same constituency in an election held in the year 1995. The
petitioner had thereafter lost assembly election in the year 2000,
but he was again elected in the next assembly election held in
the month of February 2005, followed by his fourth term in a
bye-election held in the same year i.e. in the month of
November 2005. On being elected, the petitioner as per
seniority was allotted Government Quarter No.3, Taylor Road
Patna High Court L.P.A No.459 of 2021 dt.03-04-2025
7/22
vide letter no.766 dated 04.05.2006 issued under the signature
of Additional Secretary, Bihar Legislative Assembly, consequent
upon which the petitioner occupied allotted government quarter.
In the writ application the petitioner further contended that he
was re-elected for the fifth term in the assembly election held in
the year 2010 and the same Government Quarter no.3, Taylor
Road was re-allotted to him vide memo no.Awas 15/10-14 dated
17.01.2011
, thus the petitioner continued to occupy the said
quarter. Petitioner further contended that when he was continued
to occupy the said quarter, the same was allotted to one Manoj
Kumar Singh, Minister, Water Resources Department, on
account of the fact that petitioner had resigned the post of MLA
on 14.03.2014 but the said order was later on revoked vide
Memo No.11844 dated 21.11.2014 issued under the signature of
State Officer and thus the same quarter/government Bunglow
continued to remain in the possession of the petitioner.
9. In the writ application it was further contended by
the appellant/petitioner that for contesting 2014 Parliamentary
Election the appellant/petitioner resigned from the post of MLA
on 14.03.2014 and thereafter he lost the 2014 Parliamentary
Election. The petitioner further stated that pursuant to losing the
2014 Parliamentary Election, the appellant/petitioner was
Patna High Court L.P.A No.459 of 2021 dt.03-04-2025
8/22
nominated as a member of “State Legislature Research and
Training Bureau” vide Memo No.2724 dated 27.10.2014
(Annexure-2 to the writ application) under the provisions of
Rule 283(j) of the Bihar Legislative Council of Procedure and
Conduct Rules.
10. In paragraph-10 of the writ application the
petitioner specifically contended that as per Notification
No.58/2008-2583(3) dated 21.08.2008 issued under the
signature of the then Secretary, Bihar Legislative Council, a
member of “State Legislature Research and Training Bureau”
was entitled to avail all the perks and privileges as was available
to a member of either the Bihar Legislative Council or
Assembly. The relevant portion of the notification dated
21.08.2008 (Annexure-3 to the writ application) is quoted herein
below for needful:
“रराज्य वविधराययी अध्ययन एविवं प्रवशिक्षण ब्ययररो कके सदस्ययों करो वबिहरार
वविधरान मवंडल (सदस्ययों करा विकेतन भतके एविवं पकेशिन ) वनयमराविलयी 2006
कके वनयम 17 (2) IV कके प्रराविधरानयसरार पयविर सदस्य कके रूप मम दकेय
पमशिन, रकेलविके कयपन एविवं वचिवकत्सरा सयवविधरा कके अवतररक्त पटनरा मके आविरास
ककी सयवविधरा, ददैवनक भतरा, दरय भराष ककी सयवविधरा वविदयत शियल्क ककी सयवविधरा
और उपस्कर तथरा स्टकेशिनरयी हकेतय विके हयी सयवविधराएवं अनयमरान्य हरोगयी जरो
वबिहरार वविधरान पररषद / सभरा कके वितर मरान मराननयीय सदस्यरो करो उपलब्ध
Patna High Court L.P.A No.459 of 2021 dt.03-04-2025
9/22हदै।”
Interpreting the above notification dated 21.08.2008,
the petitioner in paragraph-11 of the writ application stated that
“……as per this circular the petitioner was allowed to continue
all the facilities available to him as the member of legislative
assembly and thus the same telephone number was allotted to
him as well as a letter no.702(4) dated 13.05.2015 with the
signature of the Additional Secretary, Bihar Legislative Council
(respondent no.7) was issued, address to the Secretary, Building
Construction Department to allow this petitioner continue his
occupation in the same Quarter No.3, Tailor Road after
regularisation.”
11. The petitioner further contended that the
Additional Secretary of Bihar Legislative Council had again
sent a fresh reminder vide his letter no.1359(4) dated
06.10.2015 addressed to the Principal Secretary, Building
Construction Department, stating therein that till then no
communication had been made regarding allotment of any
quarter to the petitioner and thus the Principal Secretary,
Building Construction Department was requested to
communicate with regard to decision taken in the matter. The
petitioner further contended that despite these communications
issued by the Additional Secretary, Bihar Legislative Council,
Patna High Court L.P.A No.459 of 2021 dt.03-04-2025
10/22
the Executive Engineer, Tax Division, Building Construction
Department, Bihar, Patna (respondent no.3 in the writ
application) issued a letter bearing no.11783 dated 25.11.2015
by which the appellant/petitioner was directed to vacate the said
Government Quarter No.3, Taylor Road as the same had been
earmarked for Minister. Fearing threat of forcible eviction, the
petitioner had filed a writ application before this Hon’ble Court
vide CWJC No.19237 of 2015 but the same was unconditionally
withdrawn vide order dated 06.01.2016 and thereafter the
petitioner had preferred Title Suit No.03 of 2016 against the
threat of forcible eviction, but ultimately due to constant
pressure, the petitioner finally vacated Quarter No.3 situated at
Taylor Road on 12.05.2016. The petitioner further contended in
the writ application that when the petitioner had gone to visit
Bihar Legislative Council he was served with a letter dated
24.08.2016 issued under the signature of the Exeuctive
Engineer, Tax Division (respondent no.3), from perusal of which
he learnt that a total demand of Rs.20,98,757/-(Twenty Lakhs
Ninety Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Seven) was due
against him as house rent for the period of over stay in the said
quarter from 14.04.2014 to 12.05.2016.
12. As per the petitioner, the said letter dated
Patna High Court L.P.A No.459 of 2021 dt.03-04-2025
11/22
24.08.2016 (Annexure-10 to the writ application) creating a
dues of Rs.20,98,759/- against the petitioner, was illegal,
without jurisdiction and in contravention of notification dated
21.08.2008 by which the petitioner had claimed that he was
entitled to the same perks and privileges as that of a member of
Bihar Legislative Assembly or Bihar Legislative Council and
hence being aggrieved the petitioner had filed the writ
application challenging the letter dated 24.08.2016 (Annexure-
10 to the writ application) whereby an order for deduction of a
sum of Rs.20,98,757/- as house rent from the petitioner had
been issued, pursuant to a directive of the State Officer
(respondent no.4 in the writ application) issued vide letter
no.6943 dated 20.07.2016. It is considered appropriate to quote
the entire letter no.2001 dated 24.08.2016, which was the
subject matter of challenge in the writ application. The same is
quoted herein below for needful:
dk;Zikyd vfHk;Urk dk dk;kZy;
dj ize.My] Hkou fuekZ.k foHkkx] iVuk
————————————————————————————-
i=kad& 2001 iVuk@fnukad%& 24-8-16
izs'kd%&
dk;Zikyd vfHk;Urk]
dj ize.My] Hkou fuekZ.k foHkkx]
fcgkj] iVukA
lsok esa]
lfpo]
fcgkj fo/kku lHkk
iVukA
Patna High Court L.P.A No.459 of 2021 dt.03-04-2025
12/22fo’k;%& Jh vouh”k dqekj flag] iwoZ ekuuh; l0 fo0 l0] iVuk dk
{ks= la0&20 }kjk iwoZ esa /kkfjr ljdkjh vkokl la[;k&03] Vsyj
jksM] iVuk ds cdk;k jkf”k clqyh ds lEcU/k esaAizlax%& Hkw&lEink inkf/kdkjh ds i=kad 6943 ¼Hk½ fnukad 20-7-2016 ,oa
iz”kk[kk inkf/kdkjh] fcgkj fo/kku lHkk] iVuk ds i=kad 375
fnukad 27-02-2015egk”k;]
mi;qZDr fo’k;d izklafxd i= ds lanHkZ esa dguk gS fd Jh
vouh”k dqekj flag] ekuuh; iqoZ lnL; {ks= la0&20 fcgkj fo/kku lHkk] iVuk ds }kjk
iwoZ /kkfjr vkokl la[;k&03] Vsyj jksM] iVuk esa fnukad 05-05-2006 ls fnukad 12-05-
2016 rd vkokflr FksA fcgkj fo/kku lHkh ds i=kad 375 fnukad 27-02-2015 }kjk
lwfpr fd;k x;k gS fd Jh flag fnukad 14-03-2014 dks fcgkj fo/kku lHkh ds lnL;rk
ls R;kxi= ns fn;s FkA mlds mijkUr mDr vkokl esa vuf/kd`r :i ls vkokflr jgsA
fu;ekuqlkj vuf/kd`r :i ls jgus ij vkokl fdjk;k dk 15 xq.kk ¼cktkj &lg&n.M
fdjk;k½ olqyuh; gSA dk;kZikyd vfHk;Urk] dsUnzh; Hkou ize.My ds i=kad 2877
fnukad 17-05-2016 }kjk vkokl [kkyh dh lwpuk izkIr gqbZ gSA fnukad 31-10-2012 rd
vkokl fdjk;k dh jkf”k tek gSA fnukad 31-10-2012 ls fnukad 13-04-2014 rd ,oa
fnukad 14-03-2014 ls 13-04-2014 rd muds R;kx i= nsus ds i”pkr ,d ekg
vUkqekU; vof/k ds lkFk fdjk;k dh jkf”k :0 77]107¾62 ,oa fnukad 14-04-2014 ls
12-05-2016 rd vkokl [kkyh djus rd cktkj & lg &n.M fdjk;k dh jkf”k #0
20]49]327¾82 ;kfu dqy jkf”k # 27]678¾00 ds lek;kstu djus ds i”pkr vc dqy
cdk;k jkf”k # 20]98]757¾00 #i;s vkokl fdjk;k ds :i esa olqyuh; gSA mDr
fdj;k dh jkf”k olqyh dk funsZ”k Hkw&lEink inkf/kdkjh] Hkou fuekZ.k foHkkx] iVuk
dsi=kad 6943¼Hk½ fnukad 20-7-2016 }kjk fn;k x;k gSA
vr% vuqjks/k gS fd mDr cdk;k jkf”k dh olqyh djus dh dkjZokbZ djus
dh d`ik dh tk;A lkFk gh lkFk ekuuh; iqoZ lnL; Jh vouh”k dqekj flag ds
i=kpkj dk irk bl dk;kZy; dks miyC/k djkbZ tk;] rkfd olqyh ds lEcU/k esa
muls i=kpkj fd;k tk ldsA
fo”oklHkktu
g0@& vLi’V
dk;Zikyd vfHk;Urk]
dj ize.My] Hkou fuekZ.k foHkkx]
fcgkj] iVukA
13. Per contra; the respondent-State and its
functionaries named as respondent nos.1 to 4 in the writ
application in their counter affidavit filed before the learned
Single Judge had opposed the prayer made by the
appellant/petitioner in the writ application and they had
defended the decision taken vide letter dated 24.08.2016 by
which order for deduction of a sum of Rs.20,98,757/- as house
Patna High Court L.P.A No.459 of 2021 dt.03-04-2025
13/22rent from the petitioner had been issued for the period of
14.04.2014 to 12.05.2016 when the petitioner was in illegal
occupation of Quarter No.3, situated at Taylor Road, Patna.
14. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it
was stated that the petitioner had demanded no dues certificate
of the said Quarter No.3, Taylor Road, Patna from the
respondent no.3 by letter dated 18.09.2015 which was
responded by the respondent no.3 vide letter no.3966 dated
21.09.2015 in which it had been clearly stated that till
30.09.2015 the dues rent of the said Quarter No.3, Taylor Road,
Patna was Rs.14,14,118/- and request was made to the petitioner
to pay the said dues, only thereafter a no dues certificate could
be issued. The petitioner did not pay the dues despite reminder
and instead decided to challenge the demand contained in letter
no.3966 dated 21.09.2015 by filing writ application vide CWJC
No.19237 of 2015 before this Hon’ble Court, which was later
withdrawn by the petitioner without seeking any liberty to move
afresh in future. The writ application was thus dismissed as
withdrawn. The order dated 06.01.2016 passed in CWJC
No.19237 of 2015 which was dismissed as withdrawn is quoted
herein below for needful:
“Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, counsel for the
petitioner in presence of the counsel for the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.459 of 2021 dt.03-04-2025
14/22respondents seeks permission of the Court to
withdrawn this writ application. There being
no objection by the respondents, the writ
application is dismissed as withdrawn.”
15. It was further contended in the counter affidavit
that the petitioner was an illegal occupant of the Government
Quarter No.3, Taylor Road, Patna from 14.04.2014 to
12.05.2016. It was also made clear that the quarter in question
fell in the pool meant for ministers and therefore as per the rules
the said quarter had been allotted to Hon’ble Minister Dr. Abdul
Gafoor vide Office Order No.161 dated 11.12.2015 and
therefore the petitioner was repeatedly asked to vacate the said
quarter, which in any case he was not entitled to retain on his
own after one month from the date of his resignation i.e.
14.03.2014. It was also specifically pointed out by the
respondents that after the petitioner had resigned as MLA on
14.03.2014, the government quarter in question was de-allotted
by the Bihar Legislative Assembly which the petitioner had also
accepted in his different communications. It was further
contended by the respondents in the counter affidavit that after
hearing the petitioner, letter no.1283(bh) dated 13.02.2017 was
sent to the petitioner specifically conveying to him that (i) his
allotment of Quarter No.3, Taylor Road, Patna had been
Patna High Court L.P.A No.459 of 2021 dt.03-04-2025
15/22
disintegrated by the Bihar Legislative Assembly, (ii) the
department had not regularised the period of illegal occupancy
i.e. from 14.04.2014 to 12.05.2016 and (iii) this period was
treated as illegal occupancy of the government quarter as per
rule and therefore the petitioner was asked to deposit the
calculated penal rent amounting to Rs.20,98,757/- to the
government exchequer.
16. From the facts and circumstances stated above, it
is manifest that the petitioner in the writ application had
challenged the demand of penal rent of Rs.20,98,757/- as house
rent which had been levied on the petitioner vide letter dated
24.08.2016 (Annexure-10 to the writ application) solely basing
his case on the notification dated 21.08.2008 (Annexure-3 to the
writ application).
17. From a careful reading of the notification dated
21.08.2008, it is apparent that the said notification only says that
a member of “State Legislature Research and Training Bureau
would be entitled to the benefit of house accommodations, daily
allowance, telephone facility, facility of electricity duty etc. as
that of an MLA or MLC.” It nowhere provides that a former
MLA will continue to retain of his own will and volition the
same government accommodation/quarter which he had earlier
Patna High Court L.P.A No.459 of 2021 dt.03-04-2025
16/22
occupied as MLA. The said notification also does not answer
the question as to how the petitioner continued of his own to
retain the government quarter which belonged to the pool meant
for ministers and also how did he continue to occupy the said
quarter when pursuant to his resignation the said quarter had
been de-allotted by the Bihar Legislative Assembly.
Government Quarter No.3 situated at Taylor Road, Patna had
been allotted to the petitioner when he was an MLA. The
moment he ceased to be an MLA he ought to have vacated the
quarter immediately and should have requested for allotment of
an appropriate accommodation in light of notification dated
21.08.2008, but instead of doing that he arbitrarily and illegally
continued to occupy the Government Quarter No.3 situated at
Taylor Road, Patna and all the time was pressurizing the
authorities to regularise the same in his favour after he had
ceased to be an MLA. Undoubtedly the conduct of the petitioner
was improper. There is no doubt that the petitioner continued to
illegally occupy the Government Quarter No.3 situated at Taylor
Road from 14.04.2014 to 12.05.2016 and therefore the demand
of Rs.20,98,757/- as penal house rent is completely legal and
justified. In fact we would be inclined to not only direct the
appellant/petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs.20,98,757/- in
Patna High Court L.P.A No.459 of 2021 dt.03-04-2025
17/22
the State Exchequer within one month of date of this order but
also direct him to pay interest of 6% per annum on the said
amount from 24.08.2016 up to the date of payment in the State
Exchequer, for the obstinacy on his part to continue to illegally
occupy the Government quarter despite being asked to vacate
and pay rent.
18. Before parting with this judgement, we would
like to deplore the conduct of the appellant/petitioner in light of
the following decisions which have squarely dwelled on this
issue:-
(a) In the case of Lok Prahari v. State of U.P. &
Ors. reported in (2016) 8 SCC 389, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in paragraph-38 of its judgement observed as follows:
“38. This Court, in the case of “SD Bandi v.
Karnataka SRTC, (2013) 12 SCC 631, in relation to
occupation of government bungalows, beyond the
period for which the same were allotted, observed that
“it is unfortunate that the employees, officers,
representatives of people and other high dignitaries
continue to stay in the residential accommodation
provided by the Government of India though they are no
longer entitled to such accommodation. Many of such
persons continue to occupy residential accommodation
commensurate with the office(s) held by them earlier
and which are beyond their present entitlement. The
unauthorized occupants must recollect that rights and
duties are correlative as the rights of one person entail
Patna High Court L.P.A No.459 of 2021 dt.03-04-2025
18/22the duties of another person similarly the duty of one
person entails the rights of another person. Observing
this, the unauthorized occupants must appreciate that
their act of overstaying in the premise infringes the right
of another. No law or directions can entirely control this
act of disobedience but for the self realization among the
unauthorized occupants”.
(b) In the case of Samrath Chaudhary @ Rakesh
Kumar this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 07.06.2016
delivered in LPA No.1278 of 2016 held and observed as
follows:
“We have already held in other
appeal, being L.P.A. No.1274 of 2016 that a
person who has been allotted government
accommodation in his capacity as
M.L.A./M.L.C. or a Minister does not have
vested right to hold on to it, once he ceases
to be so. In the instant case, the issue is
similar and we have no reason to take a
different or contrary view.”
(c) In the case of Court On Its Own Motion vs.
Union of Terriroty of GK and Ors. Hon’ble High Court of J
& K at Srinagar vide judgment dated 18.02.2021 delivered in
WP (c) PIL No.24 of 2020 held and observed as follows:
“05. At the very outset, we wish to observe
that it is unfortunate that some former
Patna High Court L.P.A No.459 of 2021 dt.03-04-2025
19/22Ministers/ Legislators/ Retired Officers/
Politicians/ Political persons, etc., have
illegally/ unauthorizedly managed to
continue to stay in the residential
accommodation provided to them by the
Government of Jammu and Kashmir, though
they are no longer entitled to such
accommodation. Many of such persons
continue to occupy residential
accommodation commensurate with the
office(s) held by them earlier and which are
beyond their present entitlement. The
unauthorized occupants must realize that
rights and duties go correlative to each other,
inasmuch as the rights of one person entail
the duties of another person, whereas, the
duties of one person entail the rights of
another person. In this context, the
unauthorized occupants must appreciate that
their act of overstaying in the premise
directly infringes the right of another. No law
or direction can entirely control this act of
disobedience, but for self-realization among
the unauthorized occupants.
06. Apart from the above perspective, it,
needs, must be said that the natural
resources, public lands and the public goods,
like Government bungalows/ official
residence are public property that belong to
the people of the country. The ‘Doctrine of
Patna High Court L.P.A No.459 of 2021 dt.03-04-2025
20/22Equality’, which emerges from the concepts
of justice and fairness must guide the State in
the distribution/ allocation of the same. Any
former Minister/ Legislator/ Retired Officer/
Politician/ Political person, once he/ she
demits the office, is on a par with the
common citizen, though by virtue of the
office held, he/ she may be entitled to
security and other protocols as per
assessment of the concerned filed agency.
But allotment of Government bungalow, to
be occupied during the lifetime of such
persons, would not be guided by the
constitutional principle of equality.
07. Hon’ble the Supreme Court has also had
the occasion, many a times, to deliberate
upon this issue of unauthorized/ illegal
occupation of Government accommodation
and, in two leading cases, being (i) ‘S. D.
Bandi v. Divisional Traffic Officer,
Karnataka: (2013) 12 Supreme Court Cases
631′; and (ii) ‘Lok Prahari v. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Ors. (2016) 8 Supreme Court
Cases 389′, it has not only held that such
illegal and unauthorized occupation is bad in
law, but has also directed the authorities
concerned to recover appropriate rent from
the occupants of the said government
accommodation for the period during which
they were in unauthorized occupation of the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.459 of 2021 dt.03-04-2025
21/22said accommodation.”
(d) In the case of Mahua Moitra vs Estate Officer,
Directorate of Estates & Ors. vide order dated 18.01.2024
passed in WP(C) 777/ 2024 & CM APPL. 3382 of 2024 the
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in paragraph-15 observed as follows
while refusing to interfere with the eviction order:
“15. The petitioner having been allotted the
government accommodation incidental to her
status as a Member of Parliament and that status
having ceased upon her expulsion, which
expulsion has not been stayed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court despite hearing afforded to her,
presently she has no right to continue in the said
government accommodation and accordingly,
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, she
cannot be granted protection as sought. The
allotment of government accommodation to the
petitioner was co-terminus with her status, which
has come to an end upon her expulsion. No
specific Rule has been brought before this court
which would deal with the eviction of Members
of Parliament from the government
accommodation after they cease to be the
members.”
19. From aforesaid judgements, it is absolutely clear
that time and again it has been held that a person who has been
allotted government accommodation in his capacity as
MLA/MLC does not have any vested right to hold on to it, once
he ceases to be so. He should vacate the same upon ceasing to
be an MLA or MLC.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.459 of 2021 dt.03-04-2025
22/22
20. The appellant/petitioner of this case has acted
completely contrary to the above well settled position in law and
has thus invited upon himself the present situation whereby he
has been rightly asked to pay penal rent which as per our above
direction he should pay with interest as mentioned herein above.
21. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are convinced
that this Letters Patent Appeal lacks merit and the
appellant/petitioner has not made out any case for interference
with the order of the learned Single Judge passed in writ
jurisdiction.
22. Hence the present LPA stands dismissed.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
( Alok Kumar Sinha, J)
Prakash Narayan
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 20.03.2025
Uploading Date 03.04.2025
Transmission Date NA
[ad_1]
Source link