P K HANDOO Vs. ESTATE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Kashmiri Pandit and belongs to the minority community in Kashmir Valley. He was working with Intelligence Bureau Government of India and retired on 31/7/2004. He was allotted Government accommodation, D-45 Mandir Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi. The Estate Officer passed the eviction order against him on 30/6/2005. The petitioner has filed the instant writ in the nature of the mandamus with the prayer to quash the eviction order and directions be issued to the respondents to allow the petitioner to retain the above said quarter till the Government makes it possible for him to return to Srinagar or till the suitable alternate accommodation is provided to him anywhere in Delhi or till such time the Court deems it fit and appropriate on payment of normal licence fee.

(2.) Petitioner points out that due to extraordinary circumstances he was left with no other alternative but to file the instant writ petition. He has enumerated the following extraordinary circumstances. Due to militancy in Kashmir the people of the minority Kashmiri Pandits were targeted, specially the petitioner, who, was the prime target because he was working in Intelligence Bureau. In addition to that his younger brother was working in RAW. Aunt of the petitioner, Smt. Rani Handoo fell to militants bullets because she had accompanied the wife of the petitioner at Rainawari, Srinagar, Kashmir to retrieve some important papers relating to the service carrier of the petitioner. Again Shri Balkishan Revoo, petitioner's maternal uncle, became the victim of the blast in a bus in 1993, while he was going to Katra from Jammu. Due to militancy, for safety reasons the members of the community of the petitioner migrated to various parts of the country including Delhi. The state government employees, who had to flee from valley, continue to be in Jammu and have been provided Government accommodation at Jammu. Some of the employees posted in Jammu and Kashmir filed writ petition before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir complaining that they were not provided accommodation by the State Government. Their prayers were rejected by a Single Judge of High Court of Jammu and Kashmir. However, Supreme Court in case J.L. Koul & Others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir in SLP No. 7369/1997, stayed the order sine die on 28.1.1998 with directions that till the time the Jammu and Kashmir State gives in writing that the life and property of these petitioners are safe in valley, they should not be evicted from the government accommodation.

(3.) It is also explained that petitioner can not go back to the Kashmir valley because his life is in danger on account of on going militancy. Most importantly, his own house in Srinagar was burnt/destroyed by the militants and he has no other shelter anywhere in India because of his meagre income received as pension. He cannot take alternate private accommodation in Delhi, where he can live with dignity with his family members. The respondents have the power to relax the allotment Rules in respect of any person, as per SR317-B-25 of the Allotment of Government Residences (General Pool in Delhi) Rules, 1963.