A Delhi court has overturned its interim order, ruling that Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MP Raghav Chadha does not have a vested right to continue occupying a government Type-7 bungalow in Pandara Road, which falls under Lutyens' Delhi, after the allotment was cancelled and the privilege was withdrawn, news agency IANS reported. These bungalows are reserved for legislators who have served as Ministers, Chief Ministers, or Governors. The interim order issued by Patiala House Courts Additional District Judge Sudhanshu Kaushik asked the Rajya Sabha Secretariat to desist from evicting him from the home without following the legal process.
The development occurred in Chadha's challenge against the Rajya Sabha Secretariat's decision to revoke the bungalow's transfer to him, which was made in response to an order issued on March 3.
The Secretariat subsequently filed a review application, requesting that the judge recall the interim order, which has now been vacated.
"Plaintiff (Raghav Chadha) cannot claim that he has an absolute right to continue to occupy the accommodation during his entire tenure as a Member of Rajya Sabha. The allotment of Government accommodation is only a privilege given to the plaintiff, and he has no vested right to continue to occupy the same even after the cancellation of allotment," the court was quoted by IANS in its report.
According to the Secretariat, Chadha's temporary relief was given without following the procedure established in Section 80(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
According to the Secretariat, a hearing for both parties should have been held before awarding such relief under the clause.
In revoking the interim decision, the court dismissed Chadha's contention that once a Member of Parliament is assigned housing, it cannot be cancelled under any circumstances for the duration of their tenure.
The court stated that before making a final determination on whether an application should be granted under Section 80(2) of the CPC, the court must hear both parties, analyse the nature of the litigation, and assess the urgency of the situation.
It stated that the temporary relief given in Chadha's case was an obvious mistake, and the April 18 ruling was recalled and annulled.
The court determined that because no urgent or immediate remedy was sought in the claim, the plaintiff should re-file the case after meeting the criteria of Section 80(1) of the CPC.
In April, the court ordered the secretariat not to evict Chadha from the house while the suit was pending.
The judge stated that he would not comment on the plaintiff's argument regarding the Secretariat's failure to cancel an allotment made during an MP's entire tenure, but he acknowledged the plaintiff's claim that a person cannot be dispossessed without following due process of law.
The judge stated that Chadha was occupying public property and that the Secretariat was required to follow due process.
Chadha's contention that the Secretariat was behaving rashly and that he faced being evicted without due process was also taken into account.
The judge determined that a prima facie case had been made for imposing orders preventing Chadha from being evicted from the bungalow without due process of law.