No relief to Mahua Moitra, Delhi HC refuses to stay eviction of govt bungalow

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Thursday refused to grant relief to the TMC leader and expelled MP Mahua Moitra by denying the stay on the operation of eviction of the government bungalow. Moitra had challenged the eviction order and sought a stay. The high court noted that her expulsion has not been stayed by the Supreme Court.

Justice Girish Kathpaliya dismissed the interim application seeking a stay of operation of the eviction order of January 16, 2024. While dismissing the application The High Court said, "In view of the pendency of the issue of expulsion of petitioner before the Supreme Court and the issue of extension of time to vacate the government accommodation being inextricably linked with that, coupled with the fact that as on date petitioner has no right." The High Court also said that this court is not inclined to invoke jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to restrain the operation of the impugned eviction order.

Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. "The petitioner having been allotted the government accommodation incidental to her status as a Member of Parliament and that status having ceased upon her expulsion, which expulsion has not been stayed by the Supreme Court despite hearing afforded to her, presently she has no right to continue in the said government accommodation and accordingly, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, she cannot be granted protection as sought," Justice Kathpaliya said in the order passed on Thursday.

The High Court further said that the allotment of government accommodation to the petitioner was a co-terminus with her status, which has come to an end upon her expulsion.

The court pointed out that no specific Rule had been brought before the court that would deal with the eviction of Members of Parliament from the government accommodation after they cease to be members. The petitioner has sought retention of her government accommodation on the ground that her expulsion as a Member of Parliament was contrary to law and the procedure laid down by Section 3B of the Act was not followed and despite the respondent no. 1 (Estate officer) having deferred the decision till resolution of representation of the petitioner by authorities the eviction order was passed.

It was also submitted that in view of her medical condition and the difficulties she would face during campaigning for the 2024 Parliament Elections, she deserves an extension of time to vacate. The court said that The prayer clause (b) of the writ petition shows it to be a matter of only political expediency and not medical issues. The petitioner wants to retain the government accommodation till the results of the 2024 General Elections of Parliament are announced.

The Court noted that admittedly, the allotment of the government accommodation to the petitioner was incidental to her election as Member of Parliament, from which post she has been expelled and despite her challenge before the Supreme Court, her expulsion has not been stayed. On January 4, 2024, She withdrew her earlier petition against the earlier eviction order and was asked to file representation before the authorities. She moved a representation thereafter.

The Court noted that the entire tone and tenor of the representation submitted by the petitioner on 5.01.2024 before the respondents show that the solitary basis of her claim of extension of time to vacate is her being a Member of Parliament and her requirement of the government accommodation so as to enable her effectively campaign in the General Elections of 2024. There is not even a whisper of her unfortunate medical condition in the said representation, the high court noted.

Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma appeared for the Central Government and argued that all submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner are beyond pleadings and dehors the record. ASG argued that as regards parity claimed with the other Members of Parliament, that was done by the Supreme Court in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 140 of the Constitution of India which jurisdiction is not available to this court.

Additional Solicitor General pointed out that the entire issue is already pending before the Supreme Court, so this court ought not to interfere by way of any interim relief, especially because the Supreme Court did not grant any interim relief to the petitioner. It was also argued that keeping in mind the limited scope of superintendence under Article 226 of the Constitution, the court ought not to supplant any view contrary to the view of the Estate Officer unless it is a case of perversity, which has admittedly not been pleaded.

ASG also sought to invoke the principles underlying Order II Rule 2 CPC and contended that the petitioner cannot be allowed to seek part of the relief from the Supreme Court and part thereof from other fora. It was further argued that nothing prevents the petitioner from approaching the Hon'ble Supreme Court for an extension of time to vacate in view of her writ petition pending there. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 16.01.2024 after the filing of reply to show cause notice, the respondent Estate Officer had deferred the proceedings in the presence of counsel for the petitioner till the decision on the representation of the petitioner.

The counsel for the petitioner also signed the order sheet of the respondent Estate officer, but the Estate officer at the back of the petitioner went ahead and passed the eviction order.

Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent Estate officer be called upon to produce records in that regard. It was further argued on behalf of petitioner that the Rule 40(1)(i) of the Central Government General Pool Residential Accommodation Rules, 2017 under which the eviction was ordered was not even applicable to the petitioner since the petitioner is a Member of Parliament and not a government servant.

It was also argued that the entitlements of Members of Parliament are governed by the Salary, Allowances and Pension of Members of Parliament Act 1954 read with the Housing and Telephone Facilities (Members of Parliament) Rules 1956. It was also argued that the inquiry contemplated under Section 3B(2) of the Act was not carried out, so the impugned order is bad in law.

The senior counsel also referred to relaxation in this regard granted to two more Members of Parliament. The main petition has been listed for hearing on January 24, 2024, before the concerned bench.