AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
1.Petitioner, by filing the instant petition, has invoked extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India read with
Section 103 of Constitution of Jammu of Kashmir, for issuance of writ of prohibition directing the respondents not to disturb his possession qua quarter
No.O- , Tulsi Bagh, Srinagar. He also seeks writ of mandamus directing the respondents to provide him security as well as a direction to the
respondents to frame a fair and transparent policy with regard to providing of security to persons having threat perception.Â
zone bearing Quarter No.O-2, at Tulsi Bagh. It is also contended that some officials of Estates Department visited the residence of petitioner two-
three times and asked him to evict the quarter, which has forced him to file present writ petition.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Mr. B.A Dar, learned Sr. AAG has strongly opposed the petition.Â
Response to the petition has been filed by respondent No.3 i.e., Additional Director General of Police (Security), J&K, contending therein that the
petitioner, being a “Y†category protectee in Kashmir, is availing security cover, besides one room, secured Hotel accommodation in Hotel Snow
Peak, Raj Bagh Srinagar. It is also contended that a residential guard is deployed from District Police Lines, Awantipora at the residence of the
petitioner at native village Tral.Â
While stating the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed for by him, respondents No.5&6 (Estates Department) have averred in their response
that the petitioner cannot claim the Government accommodation as a matter of right and has the remedy available to him in terms of Government
Order No.1655-GAD of 1998 dated
21.12.1998, which envisions providence of accommodation by I.G Security to non-official persons, affiliated with political parties, and not by Estates
Department. The response also reveals that allowing the petitioner to retain the government accommodation would open flood gate for more persons
exhorting similar treatment, inflicting extra financial burden on the State Exchequer and forcing them to hire private accommodation for lodgment of
eligible functionaries of the State so that they could perform their duties smoothly and efficiently.  Â
It is submitted by Mr. B.A Dar, learned Sr. AAG that a batch of similar petitions with lead case being OWP No.545/2015, title “Choudhary
Mohammad Ramzan vs State of J&K and ors.†was disposed of by a learned Single Bench of the Srinagar Wing of this Court vide judgment dated
01.05.2015, inter alia, directing the State Government to constitute a committee to make objective assessment of threat perception of each of the
petitioners therein to retain the Government accommodation in their use or to provide alternate Government/hired accommodation to them and to allow
them to retain the accommodation allotted to them till recommendations are received from the Committee and necessary orders are passed. Â
Mr. Dar, learned Sr. AAG has further submitted that unauthorized retention of Government accommodation by the petitioner and similar persons is
causing great hardship to the Government in accommodating the Government servants, Legislators and Ministers, who are holding the office, besides
causing huge burden on the State exchequer as the Government has to hire private houses for them.
Mr. Dar has also submitted that the Committee, so constituted, has also made recommendations against the writ petitioners who had filed petitions
(OWP Nos.535/2016, 547/2016, 1546/2015 and 1566/2015) at Jammu Wing. It is further submitted by him that the writ petitioners in aforesaid
petitions had challenged the recommendations of the Committee before the Division Bench at Jammu Wing by filing different appeals with lead case
LPAOW No.08/2018 and those appeals were also dismissed vide Judgment dated 24.04.2018 by the Division Bench at Jammu.
It is worthwhile to mention here that the allotment and retention of Government residential accommodations by the Government servants, including
Ministers and Legislators, is governed by the Regulations of 2004 and eviction is governed by the Act. This is rather common ground of both the sides.
Under the Regulations of 2004 the allotment and retention of the Government accommodation, as a general rule, is linked with the position/status of
the allottee alone, as has also been observed by the learned Single Bench in the judgment dated 01.05.2015 in OWP No.545/2016. The only exception
to this general rule is provided under clause 13(e) of the Regulations, which allows 5 per cent of the available residential accommodation to be kept at
the disposal of the Minister, Estates, for allotment to persons, other than Government employees. Under clause 13 of the Regulations, no allottee of a
Government accommodation can retain the accommodation for more than a month after he ceases to hold the official position/status, though this
period extends to two months in case of death of the allottee. The Regulations neither directly nor by implication link the allotment with the threat
perception faced by a person or his categorization as a protected person. Qua present case, no material has been produced by petitioner to show that
the allotment of Government accommodation to him, have had an element of consideration to the threat perception faced and the security required.
Occupying government accommodation beyond fixed period, notwithstanding their non-entitlement, aggravates predicament for providing
accommodation to other persons waiting for allotment. It would be apt to quote paragraphs 1 and 29 of the judgment passed in S.D Bandi v Divisional
Traffic Officer, KSTRC and Ors., (2013) 12 SCC 631 wherein the anxiety has been shown by the Supreme Court, hereunder in verbatim:-
“1) The instant case relates to the occupation of government accommodation by members of all the three branches of the State, viz., the
Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary beyond the period for which the same were allotted. The occupation of such government houses/quarters
beyond the period prescribed causes difficulty in accommodating other persons waiting for allotment and, therefore, the Government is at a loss on the
one hand in not being able to accommodate those persons who are in need and on the other is unable to effectively deal with the persons who continue
to occupy unauthorisedly beyond the period prescribed.
29) 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 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 overstaying in the premise directly
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. The matter is disposed of with the above terms and no order is required in I.As for impleadment and intervention.â€
Quashing an amendment made in a Uttar Pradesh State law, to permit former Chief Ministers to occupy government bungalows, recently, the
Supreme Court in “Lok Prahari through its General Secretary v. the State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.â€, vide judgment dated 07.05.2018, has held
that such a legislation is arbitrary, discriminatory and unsupported by the Constitution. Further holding that once public servant demits office, there
should be nothing to distinguish them from a common man. The public office held by them becomes a matter of history and, therefore, cannot form
basis of a reasonable classification to categorize previous holders of public office as a special category of persons entitled to the benefit of special
privileges.
The Division Bench of this Court at Jammu Wing has also exhaustively dealt with a batch of appeals with lead case being LPAOW No.08/2014,
titled “Ajay Kumar Sadhotra Vs. State of J&K and ors.â€, and dismissed the appeals filed by ex-Ministers discussing therein all the issues as have
been raised by the petitioner in the present petition. Thus, the said judgment as a doctrine of precedence demands and requires, sets at rest the
controversy involved in present case as well.
For all what has been discussed hereinabove, the petitioner has failed to make out a case and I find no merit in this petition and as such, same is,
accordingly, dismissed along with connected IA.