Jammu: In a significant order, the Division Bench of High Court of J&K and Ladakh (Jammu Wing) has directed the J&K administration to apprise the court about the nature of the accommodation which was provided to ex-ministers, ex-legislators, and former bureaucrats The court has also sought the reasons for doing so by the next date of hearing.
In response to the PIL seeking eviction of ex-ministers, and former legislators from ministerial bungalows, the Division Bench at the outset observed that it had perused the report submitted by the administration in sealed cover, which was again kept in the sealed cover.
However, the court expressed displeasure on the report filed by the respondents while observing, “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 two separate issues.”
These court directions were passed in the much-publicised Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No 17/2020 highlighting unauthorised occupation of ministerial bungalows by the former ministers and former MLAs at Srinagar and Jammu.
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 Mohammed Zulkarnain Choudhary appearing for the petitioner drew the attention of the Division Bench towards the decision of the High Court rendered by a Division Bench on December 26, 2022 in CM Nos 7467/2022 and 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,” the court said.
Advocate S S Ahmed vehemently argued that as per the earlier decision of the Division Bench of the High Court, the inference which could be drawn was that while due to certain threat perception, security cover could be granted to a person, it was not necessary that the person had to be provided the government accommodation also, which was also the stand of the administration in the case.
Advocate S S Ahmed, appearing for petitioner, also submitted that there was no requirement in law for the government to provide accommodation as well to a person who was being provided a security cover.
Advocate Ahmed submitted that, even if accommodation was required to be provided in exceptional circumstances, the accommodation to be provided to a former chief
Minister or minister or a retired bureaucrat cannot be the same after his ceasing to occupy the office as he or she was occupying when he or she was in office.
Advocate Ahmed also referred to the RTI information received from the 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, former health minister Bali Bhagat, former minister Sunil Kumar 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 October 15, 2018.
Advocate Ahmed further submitted that till date, the unauthorised occupants have not vacated the ministerial bungalows nor the Estates Department initiated eviction proceedings against the unauthorised occupants.
Advocate Ahmed further highlighted that the Estates Department had been selective in carrying out evictions of the politicians as 107 political persons were evicted from government accommodations at Jammu.
He submitted that the former ministers and former legislators belonging to a particular political party having access to the corridors of power had not been picked up for eviction drive.
After considering the submissions of Advocate Ahmed, the Division Bench headed by Chief Justice N Kotishwar Singh observed, “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 the nature of the accommodation provided to these persons and the reasons for doing so by the next date.”
Looking into the importance of the matter, the Division Bench directed the Registry to re-notify the instant PIL on July 19, 2023.