‘UP ex-CMs can’t get govt house for life’

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court on Monday held that former chief ministers of Uttar Pradesh are not entitled to government accommodation for life.

A bench comprising of Justices Anil R. Dave, N.V. Ramana and R. Banumathi gave this ruling on a petition filed in 2004 by NGO Lok Prahari through Satya Narain Shukla challenging the provisions of a UP legislation and the rules, providing for allotment of government accommodation to former CMs, including Rajnath Singh, N.D. Tiwari, Mayawati, Mulayam Singh Yadav, Ram Naresh Yadav and Kalyan Singh. The bench has directed all the former CMs to vacate the government accommodation within two months and asked them to pay market rent from the day they demitted office.

The NGO said 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. The state of UP contended that in a federal set up, like the Union, the state has also power to provide residential bungalow to the former chief ministers. Rejecting the contention, the bench said “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.”

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.”

The Bench said “the State 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. 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. One should remember here that public property cannot be disposed of in favour of any one without adequate consideration.”

The Bench said “Allotment of government property to someone without adequate market rent, in the 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. 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.”