Delhi High Court - Orders
Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs Union Of India & Anr on 14 September, 2022
Author: Yashwant Varma
Bench: Yashwant Varma
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7868/2022
DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Satya Sabharwal and Mr. Amrit
Singh, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr.
Asheesh Jain, CGSC with Mr. Adarsh
Kumar Gupta, Ms. Niyati Sharma and
Mr. Keshav Mann, Advs. for R-1 & 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA
ORDER
% 14.09.2022 This writ petition had been preferred seeking the following reliefs:- "a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the Respondent No.1 to re-allot Type- VII Government accommodation [AB-14 Pandara Road, New Delhi-110003] to the Petitioner, b. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the Respondent No.1 to allot not less than Type-VII Government accommodation with required JSR conducted, to the Petitioner in alternative without prejudice to other Rights,"
The petitioner before the Court is a „Z‟ category protectee of the Union Government. The Government accommodation in question was allotted to him on 15 January 2016 on a lease and license basis for a period of five years. The aforesaid order which has been placed on the record appears to suggest that the premises in question came to be allotted to the petitioner on account of the threat perception which was assessed by the respondents at that stage. The petitioner subsequently became a Member of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:14.09.2022 17:59:12 the Rajya Sabha and his term as a member of that House came to an end on 24 April 2022. It would be pertinent to note that while the petitioner was serving as a Member of the Rajya Sabha, the premises in question continued to remain in the General Pool of Residences. The allotment ultimately and in terms of the original order of 15 January 2016 came to an end by efflux of time. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the instant writ petition came to be preferred with the petitioner contending that bearing in mind the security arrangements which are required to be made for a „Z‟ category protectee, the allotment which was originally made in his favour should be continued. Mr. Mehta, learned senior counsel appearing in support of the petition argued that the allotment of the house in question was clearly linked to the security cover which was provided to the petitioner and in the absence of any review or downgrading of the threat perception, the respondents are obliged to re- allot the premises in question.
Mr. Jain, learned ASG appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that while the petitioner continues to remain a „Z‟ category protectee, the policy and guidelines which govern such protectees does not obligate the Government to provide residential accommodation from the General Pool. It is submitted that while the Union Government shall continue to extend „Z‟ category protection to the petitioner subject to periodical view, it would not be possible for the house in question to be re- allotted to the petitioner. Mr. Jain further submitted that in any case the petitioner has his own residential premises to which he can possibly shift and the protecting agencies shall take all necessary steps as may be warranted and found expedient to secure the residence and ensure the safety of the petitioner.Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:14.09.2022 17:59:12
Turning to the merits of the issues that arise, the Court notes that undisputedly the original allotment was made for a period of 5 years. That period has clearly come to an end by efflux of time. The Court has been apprised by the respondents that no security protocol mandates or requires the allotment of Government accommodation to a „Z‟ category protectee. The Court also bears in mind the fact that while the petitioner was permitted to retain the premises while he was a Member of the Rajya Sabha, even that term has come to an end. All that would, therefore, be left to be done by the respondents would be to ensure that adequate arrangements are made so as to secure the residential premises of the petitioner bearing in mind the threat perception that he is stated to face. The Court takes on board the statement made by the learned ASG in this respect.
Accordingly, while the reliefs as sought in the writ petition are refused, the writ petition shall stand disposed of subject to the aforesaid observations. The Court further directs the petitioner to ensure that vacant possession of the house in question is handed over to the concerned Estate Officer within a period of six weeks from today.
Insofar as the issues emanating from the proceedings which have been drawn by the respondents under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958 is concerned, the Court leaves it open to the petitioner to raise all issues before the Estate Officer.
YASHWANT VARMA, J.
SEPTEMBER 14, 2022 SU Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:14.09.2022 17:59:12