LOK PRAHARI Vs STATE OF U.P. .
Bench: ANIL R. DAVE,N.V. RAMANA,R. BANUMATHI
Case number: W.P.(C) No.-000657-000657 / 2004
Diary number: 20068 / 2004
Advocates: PETITIONER-IN-PERSON Vs
SHAIL KUMAR DWIVEDI
Page 1
1 CORRECTED
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.657 OF 2004
Lok Prahari ... Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ... Respondents
J U D G M E N T
ANIL R. DAVE, J.
1. A short but serious and significant issue has been raised
in this public interest litigation, which pertains to government
bungalows occupied by former Chief Ministers of the State of
Uttar Pradesh.
2. The Petitioner is a Society registered under the Societies
Registration Act with objects pertaining to public welfare, etc.
and the petition has been filed through its General Secretary,
Page 2
2 who appeared in person. He is a former officer of All India
Services and has ventilated grievances which are definitely
serious one, touching the State exchequer and conduct of the
persons who were Chief Ministers of the State of Uttar
Pradesh. The main submission made in the petition is that
several former Chief Ministers had occupied Government
bungalows of Type VI even after demitting office of the Chief
Minister for several years without any right to retain the same,
which is not only immoral and illegal, but it also does not befit
persons who were Chief Ministers of the State.
3. At the time when the petition was admitted on 13th
January, 2006, this Court had passed the following Order:
“The challenge in this petition is to the validity of Ex-Chief Ministers Residence Allotment Rules, 1997. The petitioner claims it to be illegal, malafides and colourable exercise of power. It is also claimed that the Rules, which are non-statutory, could not have been framed in the light of the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Ministers (Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1981.
On the other hand, it has been, inter alia, contended on behalf of the State that in the federal structure, there is no bar if provision is made for allotment of residential accommodation to ex-Chief
Page 3
3 Ministers of the State. It is also contended that the matter deserves to be examined further in the light of the provisions of the President’s (Emoluments and Pension) Act, 1951. The further contention is that the former Presidents and the Prime Ministers are also allotted residential accommodation after they cease to hold those positions.
In our view, the writ petition raises important questions, which require deeper consideration. Accordingly, while issuing Rule, we direct that notice be issued to the Union of India and other State Governments/Union Territories.”
Thus, we have to examine whether the provisions of
Ex-Chief Ministers Residence Allotment Rules, 1997
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1997 Rules’) are valid or
contrary to the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Ministers
(Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1981
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘the 1981 Act’).
4. As several former Chief Ministers had occupied
government bungalows, a petition, in the nature of a Public
Interest Litigation, being Writ Petition No.1313 (M/S) of 1996
was filed before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by
Janhit Sangathan, a registered Society of retired senior Civil
Servants. At the time when the said petition was filed, there
Page 4
4 were no Rules or Regulations permitting former Chief
Ministers to occupy government bungalows.
5. In the aforestated circumstances, the State of U.P. i.e.
respondent no.1 framed the 1997 Rules during the pendency
of the said petition. The 1997 Rules are not statutory Rules
and they are in the nature of executive instructions. The 1997
Rules provide that former Chief Ministers should be provided
government bungalows for their residence for the life and upon
their death, the family members occupying the bungalow
should hand over vacant possession of the bungalow within 3
months from the date of the death of the former Chief Minister
and failing which they would be liable to pay penal rent. The
1997 Rules do not provide for allotment of bungalows either to
the family members of the former Chief Ministers or to any
Trust or Society concerned with any former Chief Minister.
6. As the 1997 Rules were framed during the pendency of
Writ Petition No.1313 (M/S) of 1996, the aforestated Writ
Petition was amended so as to challenge the validity of the
Page 5
5 1997 Rules on the ground that the 1997 Rules were not only
unconstitutional and illegal, but were also violative of the
provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
7. At the time of hearing of the said petition, a statement
was made by the learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for respondent no.1 that only Type V bungalows
would be allotted to the former Chief Ministers and the former
Chief Ministers will have to make some payment of rent for
occupying such bungalows. Some other provisions with
regard to expenditure to be incurred for maintenance of the
bungalows were also referred to by him. The learned
Additional Advocate General had further submitted that
possession of bungalows allotted to private trusts or
organizations would be taken back by the government as there
was no provision with regard to making allotment of
government bungalows to such trusts/societies/organizations
etc. Ultimately, the petition was disposed of on 20th August,
2001 without deciding the validity of the 1997 Rules in view of
the fact that the aforestated statements were made by the
Page 6
6 learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of Respondent
no.1-State. It was also directed that the family members of
the former Chief Ministers, who were occupying such premises
even after the death of the former Chief Minister will have to
vacate the premises within a particular period.
8. It further appears that in spite of the statement made by
the learned Additional Advocate General, the government did
not do the needful for getting possession of the bungalows
occupied by the family members of the deceased former Chief
Ministers and in the aforestated circumstances, the present
writ petition was filed with the following main prayer :
“(1) declare the Ex-Chief Ministers Residences Allotment Rules, 1997 (Annexure P-4 to the WP) illegal being malafides, colourable exercise of power and against the provisions of the Constitution.”
It has also been prayed that rent payable by the
unauthorized occupants of such bungalows be recovered and
those who were occupying bungalows allotted to former Chief
Ministers be evicted.
Page 7
7 9. It has also been prayed that certain private trusts or
organizations or societies, who are occupying government
bungalows be also directed to vacate the bungalows.
10. It is pertinent to note that after disposal of Writ Petition
No.1313 (M/S) of 1996, respondent no.1-State framed rules
titled as “The Distinguished Personality Trust Allotment of
Houses in Lucknow under the Control of State Estate
Department Rules, 2003” (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2003
Rules’) under Office Memorandum dated 31.12.2003 to deal
with lease of houses for the use of any social service trust set
up in the name of a distinguished person who is known as a
National hero. In addition, a policy decision dated 4th July,
2005 was taken regarding allotment of premises at Lucknow,
under the administrative control of Respondent No.2
department, to certain NGOs/Trusts, Non-Government
persons and employees’ Union, who were not included under
the 2003 Rules.
Page 8
8 11. In pursuance of the aforestated 2003 Rules, one of the
respondents had been allotted a bungalow on lease for 30
years, which was renewable for a further period of 90 years at
the yearly rent of rupee 1/- by virtue of Office Memo dated
22nd January, 2004. Similarly, several other bungalows had
also been allotted on lease to different bodies, by and large, on
similar terms in pursuance of the aforestated 2003 Rules.
12. The short submissions made by the petitioner were to the
effect that after demitting the office as a Chief Minister, a
person has no right to occupy any Government bungalow for
his residence and yet several persons named in the petition,
who were Chief Ministers of the State of Uttar Pradesh had
continued to occupy Government bungalows, which are
maintained by the Government by spending enormously huge
amount every year. In absence of any statutory provision,
according to the petitioner, continued occupation or
occupation of another house after demitting the office of a
Chief Minister is illegal and therefore, they should be asked to
vacate the bungalows occupied by them and should also be
Page 9
9 asked to pay notional rent for the unauthorized occupation.
Another submission made by the petitioner was that even if
some rules and regulations are made for allotting residential
bungalows to former Chief Ministers, it would be
discriminatory and violative of the provisions of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India for the reason that other dignitaries
like the Chief Justice of the State or Principal Chief Secretary
or Speaker of the Assembly etc. are not given such facilities.
Giving residential bungalows to some of the persons holding
constitutional position in the State, by ignoring other almost
similarly situated persons would not be proper and even if
there is any regulation empowering the Government to allot
residential bungalows to former Chief Ministers, the Rules or
Regulations made to that effect cannot be said to be legal and
Constitutional.
13. Another submission made by the petitioner was that the
Government authorities did not act as per the real spirit with
which judgment in the case of Shiv Sagar Tiwari v. Union of
India (1997) 1 SCC 444, was delivered by this Court. As per
Page 10
10 observations made in para 72 of the said judgment, keeping in
view the very high constitutional position occupied by the
President, Vice-President and Prime Minister, they should be
accommodated in government premises after they demit their
office, so that problem of suitable residence does not trouble
them in the evening of life. Observations in substance are to
the effect that except the aforestated dignitaries, nobody else
should be provided government accommodation after he or she
demits his/her office. By not following the aforestated
observations made by this Court in the matter relating to
allotment of accommodation to former Chief Ministers, the
Government authorities have shown a little respect to this
Court and the law of the land.
14. Another submission was to the effect that several trusts
and organizations had been allotted government bungalows
without any justifiable reason. In the case of Shiv Sagar
Tiwari (supra), this Court has observed that government
bungalows should not be allotted to private organizations. Of
course, the judgment delivered in the case of Shiv Sagar
Page 11
11 Tiwari (supra) deals with bungalows situated in Delhi but
situation in Lucknow is quite similar because there is also
acute shortage of residential accommodation for government
employees in the said city. According to the petitioner,
government employees/officers, who are entitled to
government accommodation by virtue of their service
conditions are not allotted residential quarters due to shortage
of government premises and therefore, they are constrained to
occupy private premises, for which the government has to pay
a sizeable amount by way of house rent allowance to the
concerned government employees/officers. According to the
petitioner, on one hand there is an acute shortage of
government premises and the government employees are
constrained to occupy private premises for which a hefty
amount is paid by the government by way of allowances and
on the other hand the government bungalows are given to
private trusts or organizations without getting any rent or by
getting nominal rent of rupee 1/- or so per month. Thus,
according to the petitioner, this adversely affects the State
Page 12
12 exchequer and therefore, possession of all bungalows which
have been allotted to private organizations and trusts or such
parties without charging adequate market rent must be taken
back by the government in the interest of the public at large.
15. So as not to lengthen this judgment, we are not referring
to the names of the persons/former Chief Ministers and trusts
and private organizations to whom government bungalows
have been given without getting adequate market rent.
16. The submission made by the petitioner was also to the
effect that occupation of residential bungalows after expiry of
the term of office of the Chief Ministers is in violation of the
provisions of the Uttar Pradesh (Salaries, Allowances and
Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1981, (hereinafter referred to as
‘the 1981 Act’) which pertains to salaries and other perquisites
to be given to the Chief Ministers.
17. The 1981 Act provides that the Ministers are to be
provided residence without any payment of rent throughout
the term of their office and for a further period of 15 days after
Page 13
13 they demit their office. Thus, there is no provision with regard
to permitting any Minister, including the Chief Minister, to
retain the official premises or any other premises in their
capacity as a Minister or a Chief Minister, 15 days after
completion of his term as a Minister or the Chief Minister.
18. The petitioner also submitted that the 1997 Rules were
framed in exercise of executive power and they are in violation
of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He
submitted that the Chief Ministers cannot be given different
treatment in the matter of allotment of bungalows after they
demit their office. If other Ministers and other constitutional
functionaries like Judges and the Chief Justice of the High
Court, Governor of the State, Speaker of the Assembly, etc. are
not provided such accommodation after completion of their
tenure, there is no justification for providing any government
bungalow either free of charge or at a nominal rent to the
former Chief Ministers. The action of respondent no.1 in
framing the 1997 Rules is thus illegal and is a colourable
exercise of power and is also violative of Article 14 of the
Page 14
14 Constitution of India as the State gives preferential treatment
to the former Chief Ministers, which is not given to other
constitutional functionaries.
19. The petitioner, therefore, prayed that the petition be
allowed and the 1997 Rules be quashed and set aside as being
discriminatory and violative of the provisions of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India.
20. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for
respondent no.1 State vehemently submitted that it is for
respondent no.1 government to exercise its executive power
and allot bungalows to former Chief Ministers even after they
demit their office. According to him, ‘former Chief Ministers’ is
a class of persons and therefore, it cannot be said that there is
any preferential treatment given to the former Chief Ministers.
He further submitted that it is for the State to decide whether
to give such accommodation to former Chief Ministers and the
said decision being executive decision in pursuance of a
particular policy, this Court should not ordinarily interfere
with the executive decision of respondent no.1-Government.
Page 15
15 21. The learned counsel appearing for the State tried to
explain the circumstances in which the government
bungalows had been provided to the former Chief Ministers.
The learned counsel also questioned the right of the petitioner
to challenge the validity of the 1997 Rules. According to him,
the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the validity of
the said Rules by filing a petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India before this Court. He further submitted
that the validity of the said Rules had been questioned in Writ
Petition No.1313 (M/S) of 1996 and the said petition has
already been disposed of, but the said Rules had not been
declared to be invalid or unconstitutional by the High Court
and therefore, this petition challenging the validity of the 1997
Rules is not maintainable.
22. The Respondents, while justifying the 1997 Rules took a
stand that some of the respondents are given ‘Z’ plus Security
by the Union of India and it is necessary to provide proper
accommodation with requisite infrastructure in a secured
locality. For providing such security, the State has to see that
Page 16
16 the accommodation of the concerned person is safe and
therefore, it is necessary to provide a special type of
accommodation to such persons.
23. The Union of India in its affidavit dated 13th December,
2006 has contended that aspect of emoluments and pensions
of former President and Vice President of India is governed by
“President’s Emoluments and Pensions Act, 1951” and “Vice
President’s Pension Act, 1997” and rules framed there-under.
The facilities provided to the Prime Minister are also governed
by Office Memorandum dated 6.12.1991 issued by the
Government of India and he had not to say anything about the
facilities to be given to the former Chief Ministers.
24. On the basis of the aforesaid contentions, the following
issues arise for our consideration:
a) Whether the writ petition filed in the public interest is maintainable and whether the writ Petitioner has locus standi to file the writ petition.
b) Whether the Ex-Chief Ministers Residence Allotment Rules, 1997 are legal and valid.
Page 17
17 25. So far as the first issue is concerned, in our opinion, the
petitioner has locus standi to file the writ petition. It has been
submitted in the petition that the petitioner society is formed
by retired civil servants, journalists and other persons who are
residents of the State of U.P. and have no malafide intention
behind filing the present petition and none of them has any
personal grudge against any of the occupants of the
government premises or any of the former Chief Ministers. In
our opinion, when the petitioner society is challenging the
validity of the 1997 Rules, whereby government bungalows
have been allotted to former Chief Ministers, especially when
there is an acute shortage of government premises, in our
opinion, it cannot be said that the petitioner has no locus
standi to file the present petition.
26. In the case of “Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union
(Regd) Sindri and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1981) 1
SCC 568, the Constitution Bench of this Court has held as
under:
Page 18
18 “29. ………….Lastly, but most importantly, where does the citizen stand, in the context of the democracy of judicial remedies, absent an ombudsman? In the face of (rare, yet real) misuse of administrative power to play ducks and drakes with the public exchequer, especially where developmental expansion necessarily involves astronomical expenditure and concomitant corruption, do public bodies enjoy immunity from challenge save through the post-mortem of parliamentary organs. What is the role of the judicial process, read in the light of the dynamics of legal control and corporate autonomy? This juristic field is virgin but is also heuristic challenge, so that law must meet life in this critical yet sensitive issued. The active coexistence of public sector autonomy, so vital to effective business management, and judicial control of public power tending to go berserk, is one of the creative claims upon functional jurisprudence.
30-46. xxx xxx xxx 47. ………....Nevertheless, the broad parameters of fairness in administration, bona fides in action, and the fundamental rules of reasonable management of public business, if breached, will become justiciable.
48. If a citizen is no more than a wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or concern beyond what belongs to any one of the 660 million people of this country, the door of the court will not be ajar for him. But, if he belongs to an organisation which has special interest in the subject-matter, if he has some concern deeper than that of a busybody, he cannot be told off at the gates, although whether the issue raised by him is justiciable may still remain to be considered. I,
Page 19
19 therefore, take the view that the present petition would clearly have been permissible under Article 226.”
Similar was the view taken in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India
and Anr. (1981) Supp SCC 87.
27. Looking at the law laid down by this Court and in view of
the fact that the petitioner society or its members have not
filed the petition with any oblique motive and as we also feel
that cause for which the petition has been filed is just and
proper, in our opinion, the petitioner has locus to file this
petition.
28. Now, let us examine the validity of the 1997 Rules framed
by Respondent no.1-State.
Article 164 of the Constitution of India reads as under:-
Article 164: Other provision as to Ministers:-
(1) The Chief Minister shall be appointed by the Governor and the other Ministers shall be appointed by the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister, and the Ministers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor.................
(5) The salaries and allowances of Ministers shall be such as the Legislature of the State may from time to time by law determine and, until the
Page 20
20 Legislature of the State so determines, shall be as specified in the Second Schedule.....”
29. Therefore, in compliance with Article 164 read with Entry
40, List II of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India,
Respondent No.1-State, in order to determine salaries and
allowances payable to the Ministers, enacted the 1981 Act. In
the said Act, Section 2 (e) defines the term “Minister”.
Section 2 (e) is reproduced herein below:
"2(e) 'Minister' means a member of the Council of Ministers of the Government of Uttar Pradesh and includes the Chief Minister, a Minister of State and a Deputy Minister of that State."
In this regard, Section 4 of the 1981 Act may also be
considered, which is as under:
“4: Residence
(1) Each Minister shall be entitled without payment of any rent to the use throughout the term of his office and for a period of fifteen days thereafter, of a residence at Lucknow which shall be furnished and maintained at public expense at the prescribed scale..”
Page 21
21 Upon perusal of the above provisions, it is clear that the
terms and conditions of service and salaries and allowances
payable to the Ministers are governed by the 1981 Act, which
currently holds the field in this regard.
30. We may now turn to the issue whether the impugned
1997 Rules are ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India and also repugnant to the provisions of the 1981 Act.
The relevant extract of the 1997 Rules is as under:-
“Rule 4: Allotment of Residence
A residence on falling vacant will be allotted by the Estate Officer to such ex-chief minister who has given an application under these rules. There will be no right for allotment of a house outside Lucknow under these rules.
Rule 6:- Period for which Allotment subsists
The allotment of residence to Ex-Chief ministers shall be effective only during their life time. The allotment shall be deemed to be automatically cancelled upon the death of Ex-chief minister and family members residing therein will have to invariably hand over the possession of the concerned residence to the Estate Department within 3 months from the date of death. If the family members residing in the residence do not hand over the possession, recovery rent, damages etc. shall be taken under the provisions of UP Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972.”
Page 22
22 31. Upon perusal of the above provisions, it is clear that the
term “Minister” includes the Chief Minister and Section 4 (1)
(a) of the 1981 Act, permits a Minister to retain his residence
for 15 days after he/she demits his/her office. In view of the
above special provisions made, the Chief Minister is not
entitled to privileges and protection as are available to the
President of India and the Vice-President of India, who are
entitled to an official residence for life.
32. The Respondents while justifying the 1997 Rules, took a
stand that some of the respondents are being given ‘Z’ plus
Security from Union of India and it is necessary to provide
proper accommodation with requisite infrastructure in a
secured locality. The afore-said contention of Respondent no.1
lacks merit and deserves to be rejected for the reason that as
the said security is to be provided by the Ministry of Home
Affairs, Union of India and provisions are already made for
such persons as per Office Memorandum dated 17.11.1997
issued by the Government of India on the recommendations of
the Ministry of Home affairs and it is the obligation of the
Page 23
23 Government of India to provide accommodation to such
persons in accordance with its own guidelines and it is not for
the Respondent-State to provide any accommodation and
therefore, the ground put forth by the Respondents is
untenable. In fact, the impugned 1997 Rules give largesse
only to former Chief Ministers without any element of
reasonableness.
33. The facts on record also reflect that many of the former
Chief Ministers, who are in occupation of Government
Bungalows, are either serving as Members of Parliament or
Governors or Cabinet Ministers in Central Government and
they have already been provided another accommodation. It
would, therefore, not be proper, in any case, to allot
permanent residence at two places to one individual.
34. If we look at the position of other constitutional post
holders like Governors, Chief Justices, Union Ministers, and
Speaker etc, all of these persons hold only one “official
residence” during their tenure. The Respondents have
contended that in a federal set up, like the Union, the State
Page 24
24 has also power to provide residential bungalow to the former
Chief Minister. The above submission of the Respondent State
cannot be accepted for the reason that the 1981 Act does not
make any such provision and the 1997 Rules, which are only
in the nature of executive instructions and contrary to the
provisions of the 1981 Act, cannot be acted upon.
35. Moreover, the position of the Chief Minister and the
Cabinet Ministers of the State cannot stand on a separate
footing after they demit their office. Moreover, no other
dignitary, holding constitutional post is given such a facility.
For the afore-stated reasons, the 1997 Rules are not fair, and
more so, when the subject of “salary and allowances” of the
ministers, is governed by Section 4 (1) (a) of the 1981 Act.
36. There is one more and most important reason for which
the 1997 Rules cannot be said to be legal. The 1981 Act deals
with the salaries and perquisites to be given to all the
Ministers, including the Chief Ministers. The said provisions
are statutory, but the 1997 Rules are not statutory and they
are only in the nature of executive instructions. If there is any
Page 25
25 variance in statutory provision and executive instruction, the
statutory provision would always prevail. This is a very
well-known principle and no further discussion is required on
the subject. When the 1981 Act enables the Chief Minister to
have residential accommodation only during his tenure and
for 15 days after completion of his tenure, the 1997 Rules
providing for an accommodation for life to the Chief Minister
cannot be said to be legal and valid. For this sole reason,
validity of the 1997 Rules cannot be upheld.
37. As far as question of accommodation to the President,
Vice-President and Prime Minister is concerned, there is no
challenge in the writ petition to the same and is limited to the
1997 Rules framed by Respondent No.1 State, therefore, it is
in-appropriate to consider the issue dealt with by this Court in
“Shiv Sagar Tiwari v. Union of India” (1997) 1 SCC 444”.
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
Page 26
26 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 the 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”.
39. As stated hereinabove, there is a statutory provision
which relates to salaries and perquisites to be given to the
ministers, including the Chief Minister. The 1981 Act is a
statute enacted by Respondent no.1-State under its power
Page 27
27 under Article 164 read with Entry 40 of the List II (State List)
of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Thus, there is a
statutory provision with regard to perquisites to be given to the
ministers, including the Chief Minister under Section 4 of the
said Act, which has been reproduced hereinabove. The said
Act provides that all the ministers are entitled to official
residence without payment of any rent and they are also
entitled to occupy the said official residence for 15 days even
after completion of their term. Thus the statutory provision is
to the effect that the Chief Minister can continue to occupy the
official accommodation for a further period of 15 days after
completion of his/her term.
40. The 1997 Rules are not statutory rules. They are in the
nature of administrative or executive instructions. They would
not stand the test of legality if they are not in consonance with
statutory provisions. The said Rules are definitely in
contravention of the statutory provisions and therefore, the
said Rules can be said to be bad in law so far as they are in
contravention of the statutory provisions.
Page 28
28 41. There cannot be any dispute that when the rules and
regulations or executive instructions are contrary to any
statutory provision, the statutory provision would prevail and
the rules or executive instructions, so far as they are contrary
to the statutory provisions, would fail.
42. In view of the aforestated clear and unambiguous
position, in our opinion, the 1997 Rules, which permit the
former Chief Ministers to occupy government bungalows for
life cannot be said to be valid. In the circumstances,
respondent no.1 cannot permit any former Chief Minister to
occupy any government bungalow or any government
accommodation after 15 days from the date on which his term
comes to an end.
43. So far as allotment of bungalow to private trusts or
societies are concerned, it is not in dispute that all those
bungalows were allotted to the societies/trusts/organizations
at the time when there was no provision with regard to
allotment of government bungalows to them and therefore, in
our opinion, the said allotment cannot be held to be justified.
Page 29
29 One should remember here that public property cannot be
disposed of in favour of any one without adequate
consideration. Allotment of government property to someone
without adequate market rent, in absence of any special
statutory provision, would also be bad in law because the
State has no right to fritter away government property in
favour of private persons or bodies without adequate
consideration and therefore, all such allotments, which have
been made in absence of any statutory provision cannot be
upheld. If any allotment was not made in accordance with a
statutory provision at the relevant time, it must be
discontinued and must be treated as cancelled and the State
shall take possession of such premises as soon as possible
and at the same time, the State should also recover
appropriate rent in respect of such premises which had been
allotted without any statutory provision.
44. In the circumstances, for the reasons stated hereinabove,
the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute with no order as
to costs and it is held that the 1997 Rules so far as they are
Page 30
30 not in consonance with the provisions of the 1981 Act are bad
in law. The government bungalows allotted to the respondents
is held to be bad in law and the concerned respondents shall
hand over possession of the bungalows occupied by them
within two months from today and the
respondent-Government shall also recover appropriate rent
from the occupants of the said bungalows for the period
during which they were in unauthorized occupation of the said
bungalows.
………………..……………….J. (ANIL R. DAVE)
…….…………..……………….J. (N.V. RAMANA)
…….…………..……………….J. (R. BANUMATHI)
NEW DELHI; AUGUST 01, 2016.
Page 31
31 REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.657 OF 2004
Lok Prahari ... Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ... Respondents
J U D G M E N T
ANIL R. DAVE, J.
1. A short but serious and significant issue has been raised
in this public interest litigation, which pertains to government
bungalows occupied by former Chief Ministers of the State of
Uttar Pradesh.
2. The Petitioner is a Society registered under the Societies
Registration Act with objects pertaining to public welfare, etc.
and the petition has been filed through its General Secretary,
Page 32
32 who appeared in person. He is a former officer of All India
Services and has ventilated grievances which are definitely
serious one, touching the State exchequer and conduct of the
persons who were Chief Ministers of the State of Uttar
Pradesh. The main submission made in the petition is that
several former Chief Ministers had occupied Government
bungalows of Type VI even after demitting office of the Chief
Minister for several years without any right to retain the same,
which is not only immoral and illegal, but it also does not befit
persons who were Chief Ministers of the State.
3. At the time when the petition was admitted on 13th
January, 2006, this Court had passed the following Order:
“The challenge in this petition is to the validity of Ex-Chief Ministers Residence Allotment Rules, 1997. The petitioner claims it to be illegal, malafides and colourable exercise of power. It is also claimed that the Rules, which are non-statutory, could not have been framed in the light of the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Ministers (Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1981.
On the other hand, it has been, inter alia, contended on behalf of the State that in the federal structure, there is no bar if provision is made for allotment of residential accommodation to ex-Chief
Page 33
33 Ministers of the State. It is also contended that the matter deserves to be examined further in the light of the provisions of the President’s (Emoluments and Pension) Act, 1951. The further contention is that the former Presidents and the Prime Ministers are also allotted residential accommodation after they cease to hold those positions.
In our view, the writ petition raises important questions, which require deeper consideration. Accordingly, while issuing Rule, we direct that notice be issued to the Union of India and other State Governments/Union Territories.”
Thus, we have to examine whether the provisions of
Ex-Chief Ministers Residence Allotment Rules, 1997
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1997 Rules’) are valid or
contrary to the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Ministers
(Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1981
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘the 1981 Act’).
4. As several former Chief Ministers had occupied
government bungalows, a petition, in the nature of a Public
Interest Litigation, being Writ Petition No.1313 (M/S) of 1996
was filed before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by
Janhit Sangathan, a registered Society of retired senior Civil
Servants. At the time when the said petition was filed, there
Page 34
34 were no Rules or Regulations permitting former Chief
Ministers to occupy government bungalows.
5. In the aforestated circumstances, the State of U.P. i.e.
respondent no.1 framed the 1997 Rules during the pendency
of the said petition. The 1997 Rules are not statutory Rules
and they are in the nature of executive instructions. The 1997
Rules provide that former Chief Ministers should be provided
government bungalows for their residence for the life and upon
their death, the family members occupying the bungalow
should hand over vacant possession of the bungalow within 3
months from the date of the death of the former Chief Minister
and failing which they would be liable to pay penal rent. The
1997 Rules do not provide for allotment of bungalows either to
the family members of the former Chief Ministers or to any
Trust or Society concerned with any former Chief Minister.
6. As the 1997 Rules were framed during the pendency of
Writ Petition No.1313 (M/S) of 1996, the aforestated Writ
Petition was amended so as to challenge the validity of the
Page 35
35 1997 Rules on the ground that the 1997 Rules were not only
unconstitutional and illegal, but were also violative of the
provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
7. At the time of hearing of the said petition, a statement
was made by the learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for respondent no.1 that only Type V bungalows
would be allotted to the former Chief Ministers and the former
Chief Ministers will have to make some payment of rent for
occupying such bungalows. Some other provisions with
regard to expenditure to be incurred for maintenance of the
bungalows were also referred to by him. The learned
Additional Advocate General had further submitted that
possession of bungalows allotted to private trusts or
organizations would be taken back by the government as there
was no provision with regard to making allotment of
government bungalows to such trusts/societies/organizations
etc. Ultimately, the petition was disposed of on 20th August,
2001 without deciding the validity of the 1997 Rules in view of
the fact that the aforestated statements were made by the
Page 36
36 learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of Respondent
no.1-State. It was also directed that the family members of
the former Chief Ministers, who were occupying such premises
even after the death of the former Chief Minister will have to
vacate the premises within a particular period.
8. It further appears that in spite of the statement made by
the learned Additional Advocate General, the government did
not do the needful for getting possession of the bungalows
occupied by the family members of the deceased former Chief
Ministers and in the aforestated circumstances, the present
writ petition was filed with the following main prayer :
“(1) declare the Ex-Chief Ministers Residences Allotment Rules, 1997 (Annexure P-4 to the WP) illegal being malafides, colourable exercise of power and against the provisions of the Constitution.”
It has also been prayed that rent payable by the
unauthorized occupants of such bungalows be recovered and
those who were occupying bungalows allotted to former Chief
Ministers be evicted.
Page 37
37 9. It has also been prayed that certain private trusts or
organizations or societies, who are occupying government
bungalows be also directed to vacate the bungalows.
10. It is pertinent to note that after disposal of Writ Petition
No.1313 (M/S) of 1996, respondent no.1-State framed rules
titled as “The Distinguished Personality Trust Allotment of
Houses in Lucknow under the Control of State Estate
Department Rules, 2003” (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2003
Rules’) under Office Memorandum dated 31.12.2003 to deal
with lease of houses for the use of any social service trust set
up in the name of a distinguished person who is known as a
National hero. In addition, a policy decision dated 4th July,
2005 was taken regarding allotment of premises at Lucknow,
under the administrative control of Respondent No.2
department, to certain NGOs/Trusts, Non-Government
persons and employees’ Union, who were not included under
the 2003 Rules.
Page 38
38 11. In pursuance of the aforestated 2003 Rules, one of the
respondents had been allotted a bungalow on lease for 30
years, which was renewable for a further period of 90 years at
the yearly rent of rupee 1/- by virtue of Office Memo dated
22nd January, 2004. Similarly, several other bungalows had
also been allotted on lease to different bodies, by and large, on
similar terms in pursuance of the aforestated 2003 Rules.
12. The short submissions made by the petitioner were to the
effect that after demitting the office as a Chief Minister, a
person has no right to occupy any Government bungalow for
his residence and yet several persons named in the petition,
who were Chief Ministers of the State of Uttar Pradesh had
continued to occupy Government bungalows, which are
maintained by the Government by spending enormously huge
amount every year. In absence of any statutory provision,
according to the petitioner, continued occupation or
occupation of another house after demitting the office of a
Chief Minister is illegal and therefore, they should be asked to
vacate the bungalows occupied by them and should also be
Page 39
39 asked to pay notional rent for the unauthorized occupation.
Another submission made by the petitioner was that even if
some rules and regulations are made for allotting residential
bungalows to former Chief Ministers, it would be
discriminatory and violative of the provisions of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India for the reason that other dignitaries
like the Chief Justice of the State or Principal Chief Secretary
or Speaker of the Assembly etc. are not given such facilities.
Giving residential bungalows to some of the persons holding
constitutional position in the State, by ignoring other almost
similarly situated persons would not be proper and even if
there is any regulation empowering the Government to allot
residential bungalows to former Chief Ministers, the Rules or
Regulations made to that effect cannot be said to be legal and
Constitutional.
13. Another submission made by the petitioner was that the
Government authorities did not act as per the real spirit with
which judgment in the case of Shiv Sagar Tiwari v. Union of
India (1997) 1 SCC 444, was delivered by this Court. As per
Page 40
40 observations made in para 72 of the said judgment, keeping in
view the very high constitutional position occupied by the
President, Vice-President and Prime Minister, they should be
accommodated in government premises after they demit their
office, so that problem of suitable residence does not trouble
them in the evening of life. Observations in substance are to
the effect that except the aforestated dignitaries, nobody else
should be provided government accommodation after he or she
demits his/her office. By not following the aforestated
observations made by this Court in the matter relating to
allotment of accommodation to former Chief Ministers, the
Government authorities have shown a little respect to this
Court and the law of the land.
14. Another submission was to the effect that several trusts
and organizations had been allotted government bungalows
without any justifiable reason. In the case of Shiv Sagar
Tiwari (supra), this Court has observed that government
bungalows should not be allotted to private organizations. Of
course, the judgment delivered in the case of Shiv Sagar
Page 41
41 Tiwari (supra) deals with bungalows situated in Delhi but
situation in Lucknow is quite similar because there is also
acute shortage of residential accommodation for government
employees in the said city. According to the petitioner,
government employees/officers, who are entitled to
government accommodation by virtue of their service
conditions are not allotted residential quarters due to shortage
of government premises and therefore, they are constrained to
occupy private premises, for which the government has to pay
a sizeable amount by way of house rent allowance to the
concerned government employees/officers. According to the
petitioner, on one hand there is an acute shortage of
government premises and the government employees are
constrained to occupy private premises for which a hefty
amount is paid by the government by way of allowances and
on the other hand the government bungalows are given to
private trusts or organizations without getting any rent or by
getting nominal rent of rupee 1/- or so per month. Thus,
according to the petitioner, this adversely affects the State
Page 42
42 exchequer and therefore, possession of all bungalows which
have been allotted to private organizations and trusts or such
parties without charging adequate market rent must be taken
back by the government in the interest of the public at large.
15. So as not to lengthen this judgment, we are not referring
to the names of the persons/former Chief Ministers and trusts
and private organizations to whom government bungalows
have been given without getting adequate market rent.
16. The submission made by the petitioner was also to the
effect that occupation of residential bungalows after expiry of
the term of office of the Chief Ministers is in violation of the
provisions of the Uttar Pradesh (Salaries, Allowances and
Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1981, (hereinafter referred to as
‘the 1981 Act’) which pertains to salaries and other perquisites
to be given to the Chief Ministers.
17. The 1981 Act provides that the Ministers are to be
provided residence without any payment of rent throughout
the term of their office and for a further period of 15 days after
Page 43
43 they demit their office. Thus, there is no provision with regard
to permitting any Minister, including the Chief Minister, to
retain the official premises or any other premises in their
capacity as a Minister or a Chief Minister, 15 days after
completion of his term as a Minister or the Chief Minister.
18. The petitioner also submitted that the 1997 Rules were
framed in exercise of executive power and they are in violation
of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He
submitted that the Chief Ministers cannot be given different
treatment in the matter of allotment of bungalows after they
demit their office. If other Ministers and other constitutional
functionaries like Judges and the Chief Justice of the High
Court, Governor of the State, Speaker of the Assembly, etc. are
not provided such accommodation after completion of their
tenure, there is no justification for providing any government
bungalow either free of charge or at a nominal rent to the
former Chief Ministers. The action of respondent no.1 in
framing the 1997 Rules is thus illegal and is a colourable
exercise of power and is also violative of Article 14 of the
Page 44
44 Constitution of India as the State gives preferential treatment
to the former Chief Ministers, which is not given to other
constitutional functionaries.
19. The petitioner, therefore, prayed that the petition be
allowed and the 1997 Rules be quashed and set aside as being
discriminatory and violative of the provisions of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India.
20. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for
respondent no.1 State vehemently submitted that it is for
respondent no.1 government to exercise its executive power
and allot bungalows to former Chief Ministers even after they
demit their office. According to him, ‘former Chief Ministers’ is
a class of persons and therefore, it cannot be said that there is
any preferential treatment given to the former Chief Ministers.
He further submitted that it is for the State to decide whether
to give such accommodation to former Chief Ministers and the
said decision being executive decision in pursuance of a
particular policy, this Court should not ordinarily interfere
with the executive decision of respondent no.1-Government.
Page 45
45 21. The learned counsel appearing for the State tried to
explain the circumstances in which the government
bungalows had been provided to the former Chief Ministers.
The learned counsel also questioned the right of the petitioner
to challenge the validity of the 1997 Rules. According to him,
the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the validity of
the said Rules by filing a petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India before this Court. He further submitted
that the validity of the said Rules had been questioned in Writ
Petition No.1313 (M/S) of 1996 and the said petition has
already been disposed of, but the said Rules had not been
declared to be invalid or unconstitutional by the High Court
and therefore, this petition challenging the validity of the 1997
Rules is not maintainable.
22. The Respondents, while justifying the 1997 Rules took a
stand that some of the respondents are given ‘Z’ plus Security
by the Union of India and it is necessary to provide proper
accommodation with requisite infrastructure in a secured
locality. For providing such security, the State has to see that
Page 46
46 the accommodation of the concerned person is safe and
therefore, it is necessary to provide a special type of
accommodation to such persons.
23. The Union of India in its affidavit dated 13th December,
2006 has contended that aspect of emoluments and pensions
of former President and Vice President of India is governed by
“President’s Emoluments and Pensions Act, 1951” and “Vice
President’s Pension Act, 1997” and rules framed there-under.
The facilities provided to the Prime Minister are also governed
by Office Memorandum dated 6.12.1991 issued by the
Government of India and he had not to say anything about the
facilities to be given to the former Chief Ministers.
24. On the basis of the aforesaid contentions, the following
issues arise for our consideration:
a) Whether the writ petition filed in the public interest is maintainable and whether the writ Petitioner has locus standi to file the writ petition.
b) Whether the Ex-Chief Ministers Residence Allotment Rules, 1997 are legal and valid.
Page 47
47 25. So far as the first issue is concerned, in our opinion, the
petitioner has locus standi to file the writ petition. It has been
submitted in the petition that the petitioner society is formed
by retired civil servants, journalists and other persons who are
residents of the State of U.P. and have no malafide intention
behind filing the present petition and none of them has any
personal grudge against any of the occupants of the
government premises or any of the former Chief Ministers. In
our opinion, when the petitioner society is challenging the
validity of the 1997 Rules, whereby government bungalows
have been allotted to former Chief Ministers, especially when
there is an acute shortage of government premises, in our
opinion, it cannot be said that the petitioner has no locus
standi to file the present petition.
26. In the case of “Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union
(Regd) Sindri and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1981) 1
SCC 568, the Constitution Bench of this Court has held as
under:
Page 48
48 “29. ………….Lastly, but most importantly, where does the citizen stand, in the context of the democracy of judicial remedies, absent an ombudsman? In the face of (rare, yet real) misuse of administrative power to play ducks and drakes with the public exchequer, especially where developmental expansion necessarily involves astronomical expenditure and concomitant corruption, do public bodies enjoy immunity from challenge save through the post-mortem of parliamentary organs. What is the role of the judicial process, read in the light of the dynamics of legal control and corporate autonomy? This juristic field is virgin but is also heuristic challenge, so that law must meet life in this critical yet sensitive issued. The active coexistence of public sector autonomy, so vital to effective business management, and judicial control of public power tending to go berserk, is one of the creative claims upon functional jurisprudence.
30-46. xxx xxx xxx 47. ………....Nevertheless, the broad parameters of fairness in administration, bona fides in action, and the fundamental rules of reasonable management of public business, if breached, will become justiciable.
48. If a citizen is no more than a wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or concern beyond what belongs to any one of the 660 million people of this country, the door of the court will not be ajar for him. But, if he belongs to an organisation which has special interest in the subject-matter, if he has some concern deeper than that of a busybody, he cannot be told off at the gates, although whether the issue raised by him is justiciable may still remain to be considered. I,
Page 49
49 therefore, take the view that the present petition would clearly have been permissible under Article 226.”
Similar was the view taken in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India
and Anr. (1981) Supp SCC 87.
27. Looking at the law laid down by this Court and in view of
the fact that the petitioner society or its members have not
filed the petition with any oblique motive and as we also feel
that cause for which the petition has been filed is just and
proper, in our opinion, the petitioner has locus to file this
petition.
28. Now, let us examine the validity of the 1997 Rules framed
by Respondent no.1-State.
Article 164 of the Constitution of India reads as under:-
Article 164: Other provision as to Ministers:-
(1) The Chief Minister shall be appointed by the Governor and the other Ministers shall be appointed by the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister, and the Ministers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor.................
(5) The salaries and allowances of Ministers shall be such as the Legislature of the State may from time to time by law determine and, until the
Page 50
50 Legislature of the State so determines, shall be as specified in the Second Schedule.....”
29. Therefore, in compliance with Article 164 read with Entry
40, List II of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India,
Respondent No.1-State, in order to determine salaries and
allowances payable to the Ministers, enacted the 1981 Act. In
the said Act, Section 2 (e) defines the term “Minister”.
Section 2 (e) is reproduced herein below:
"2(e) 'Minister' means a member of the Council of Ministers of the Government of Uttar Pradesh and includes the Chief Minister, a Minister of State and a Deputy Minister of that State."
In this regard, Section 4 of the 1981 Act may also be
considered, which is as under:
“4: Residence
(1) Each Minister shall be entitled without payment of any rent to the use throughout the term of his office and for a period of fifteen days thereafter, of a residence at Lucknow which shall be furnished and maintained at public expense at the prescribed scale..”
Page 51
51 Upon perusal of the above provisions, it is clear that the
terms and conditions of service and salaries and allowances
payable to the Ministers are governed by the 1981 Act, which
currently holds the field in this regard.
30. We may now turn to the issue whether the impugned
1997 Rules are ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India and also repugnant to the provisions of the 1981 Act.
The relevant extract of the 1997 Rules is as under:-
“Rule 4: Allotment of Residence
A residence on falling vacant will be allotted by the Estate Officer to such ex-chief minister who has given an application under these rules. There will be no right for allotment of a house outside Lucknow under these rules.
Rule 6:- Period for which Allotment subsists
The allotment of residence to Ex-Chief ministers shall be effective only during their life time. The allotment shall be deemed to be automatically cancelled upon the death of Ex-chief minister and family members residing therein will have to invariably hand over the possession of the concerned residence to the Estate Department within 3 months from the date of death. If the family members residing in the residence do not hand over the possession, recovery rent, damages etc. shall be taken under the provisions of UP Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972.”
Page 52
52 31. Upon perusal of the above provisions, it is clear that the
term “Minister” includes the Chief Minister and Section 4 (1)
(a) of the 1981 Act, permits a Minister to retain his residence
for 15 days after he/she demits his/her office. In view of the
above special provisions made, the Chief Minister is not
entitled to privileges and protection as are available to the
President of India and the Vice-President of India, who are
entitled to an official residence for life.
32. The Respondents while justifying the 1997 Rules, took a
stand that some of the respondents are being given ‘Z’ plus
Security from Union of India and it is necessary to provide
proper accommodation with requisite infrastructure in a
secured locality. The afore-said contention of Respondent no.1
lacks merit and deserves to be rejected for the reason that as
the said security is to be provided by the Ministry of Home
Affairs, Union of India and provisions are already made for
such persons as per Office Memorandum dated 17.11.1997
issued by the Government of India on the recommendations of
the Ministry of Home affairs and it is the obligation of the
Page 53
53 Government of India to provide accommodation to such
persons in accordance with its own guidelines and it is not for
the Respondent-State to provide any accommodation and
therefore, the ground put forth by the Respondents is
untenable. In fact, the impugned 1997 Rules give largesse
only to former Chief Ministers without any element of
reasonableness.
33. The facts on record also reflect that many of the former
Chief Ministers, who are in occupation of Government
Bungalows, are either serving as Members of Parliament or
Governors or Cabinet Ministers in Central Government and
they have already been provided another accommodation. It
would, therefore, not be proper, in any case, to allot
permanent residence at two places to one individual.
34. If we look at the position of other constitutional post
holders like Governors, Chief Justices, Union Ministers, and
Speaker etc, all of these persons hold only one “official
residence” during their tenure. The Respondents have
contended that in a federal set up, like the Union, the State
Page 54
54 has also power to provide residential bungalow to the former
Chief Minister. The above submission of the Respondent State
cannot be accepted for the reason that the 1981 Act does not
make any such provision and the 1997 Rules, which are only
in the nature of executive instructions and contrary to the
provisions of the 1981 Act, cannot be acted upon.
35. Moreover, the position of the Chief Minister and the
Cabinet Ministers of the State cannot stand on a separate
footing after they demit their office. Moreover, no other
dignitary, holding constitutional post is given such a facility.
For the afore-stated reasons, the 1997 Rules are not fair, and
more so, when the subject of “salary and allowances” of the
ministers, is governed by Section 4 (1) (a) of the 1981 Act.
36. There is one more and most important reason for which
the 1997 Rules cannot be said to be legal. The 1981 Act deals
with the salaries and perquisites to be given to all the
Ministers, including the Chief Ministers. The said provisions
are statutory, but the 1997 Rules are not statutory and they
are only in the nature of executive instructions. If there is any
Page 55
55 variance in statutory provision and executive instruction, the
statutory provision would always prevail. This is a very
well-known principle and no further discussion is required on
the subject. When the 1981 Act enables the Chief Minister to
have residential accommodation only during his tenure and
for 15 days after completion of his tenure, the 1997 Rules
providing for an accommodation for life to the Chief Minister
cannot be said to be legal and valid. For this sole reason,
validity of the 1997 Rules cannot be upheld.
37. As far as question of accommodation to the President,
Vice-President and Prime Minister is concerned, there is no
challenge in the writ petition to the same and is limited to the
1997 Rules framed by Respondent No.1 State, therefore, it is
in-appropriate to consider the issue dealt with by this Court in
“Shiv Sagar Tiwari v. Union of India” (1997) 1 SCC 444”.
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
Page 56
56 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 the 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”.
39. As stated hereinabove, there is a statutory provision
which relates to salaries and perquisites to be given to the
ministers, including the Chief Minister. The 1981 Act is a
statute enacted by Respondent no.1-State under its power
Page 57
57 under Article 164 read with Entry 40 of the List II (State List)
of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Thus, there is a
statutory provision with regard to perquisites to be given to the
ministers, including the Chief Minister under Section 4 of the
said Act, which has been reproduced hereinabove. The said
Act provides that all the ministers are entitled to official
residence without payment of any rent and they are also
entitled to occupy the said official residence for 15 days even
after completion of their term. Thus the statutory provision is
to the effect that the Chief Minister can continue to occupy the
official accommodation for a further period of 15 days after
completion of his/her term.
40. The 1997 Rules are not statutory rules. They are in the
nature of administrative or executive instructions. They would
not stand the test of legality if they are not in consonance with
statutory provisions. The said Rules are definitely in
contravention of the statutory provisions and therefore, the
said Rules can be said to be bad in law so far as they are in
contravention of the statutory provisions.
Page 58
58 41. There cannot be any dispute that when the rules and
regulations or executive institutions are contrary to any
statutory provision, the statutory provision would prevail and
the rules or executive institutions, so far as they are contrary
to the statutory provisions, would fail.
42. In view of the aforestated clear and unambiguous
position, in our opinion, the 1997 Rules, which permit the
former Chief Ministers to occupy government bungalows for
life cannot be said to be valid. In the circumstances,
respondent no.1 cannot permit any former Chief Minister to
occupy any government bungalow or any government
accommodation after 15 days from the date on which his term
comes to an end.
43. So far as allotment of bungalow to private trusts or
societies are concerned, it is not in dispute that all those
bungalows were allotted to the societies/trusts/organizations
at the time when there was no provision with regard to
allotment of government bungalows to them and therefore, in
our opinion, the said allotment cannot be held to be justified.
Page 59
59 One should remember here that public property cannot be
disposed of in favour of any one without adequate
consideration. Allotment of government property to someone
without adequate market rent, in absence of any special
statutory provision, would also be bad in law because the
State has no right to fritter away government property in
favour of private persons or bodies without adequate
consideration and therefore, all such allotments, which have
been made in absence of any statutory provision cannot be
upheld. If any allotment was not made in accordance with a
statutory provision at the relevant time, it must be
discontinued and must be treated as cancelled and the State
shall take possession of such premises as soon as possible
and at the same time, the State should also recover
appropriate rent in respect of such premises which had been
allotted without any statutory provision.
44. In the circumstances, for the reasons stated hereinabove,
the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute with no order as
to costs and it is held that the 1997 Rules so far as they are
Page 60
60 not in consonance with the provisions of the 1981 Act are bad
in law. The government bungalows allotted to the respondents
is held to be bad in law and the concerned respondents shall
hand over possession of the bungalows occupied by them
within two months from today and the
respondent-Government shall also recover appropriate rent
from the occupants of the said bungalows for the period
during which they were in unauthorized occupation of the said
bungalows.
………………..……………….J. (ANIL R. DAVE)
…….…………..……………….J. (N.V. RAMANA)
…….…………..……………….J. (R. BANUMATHI)
NEW DELHI; AUGUST 01, 2016.