PATNA CITIZEN FORUM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is being heard for a considerably long time, and we had given every opportunity to the Government to correct itself, so that three is no necessity for us to say anything which may not do credit to the Government. We are at our wit's end, and it seems rather than correcting itself the Government has taken advantage of the pendency of this writ petition to queer the pitch for us. We have now decided to grant no more indulgence and proceed strictly in accordance with law.

(2.) A few facts have become quite obvious. As recorded in our order dated 23-8-1994 the rules for allotment of Government Quarters were being blatantly violated. We had directed the Advocate General to place before us all relevant material to satisfy us that the allotments made between the year 1990 and 1994 were made in accordance with the rules. We had directed him to produce the reasons recorded for such allotment. We had also required him to satisfy us that if any allotment was made without reference to the Allotment Committee under the rules between May, 1987 and August, 1994, that was done consistent with the rules. It later transpired that the Allotment Committee under the rules was nonfunctional for almost four years, and obviously, therefore, allotments were being made without reference to such a Committee. We were informed that the Hon'ble Chief Minister had passed an order on 26th October, 1994 to the effect that any allotment made contrary to the rules shall be cancelled. This is found recorded in our order dated 31-10-1994. By the same order we constituted an Allotment Committee consisting of the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Commissioner, Building Construction Department and the Director General of Police, Government of Bihar. This became necessary because the Committee under the rules had become defunct, and had not functioned for almost four years. We directed the said Committee to perform the duties of the Allotment Committee under the rules, and we directed them to act strictly in accordance with the rules. They were also entrusted with the task of evicting illegal occupants and illegal allottees by issuance of notices and by taking proceeding etc. It is not necessary for us to detail the large scale illegal allotments made during the period. Large number of politicians who had at one time held some office or were members of the Assembly or Council continued to occupy the premises even after they ceased to hold office. Large number of premises were in occupation of politicians who held no office ostensibly, and in whose favour there was no letter of allotment. The manner in which the government premises were being occupied by all and sundry made the situation chaotic. Large number of occupants were those who had no allotment orders in their favour, and many others were those who had no allotment order from the Committee under the rules, but had managed to get some order from some authority. On that strength they continued to occupy Government premises, whether entitled or not. On the other hand, there were large number of others who, though entitled to allotment of Government accommodation, were cooling their heels by the road side since their applications for allotment of Government premises received no consideration at the hands of the Government.

(3.) There is what is known as Central Pool consisting of large number of residential units meant for allotment to categories of persons specified in the rules. There is also a separate pool for the members of the Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council. We found that large number of members of the Assembly and Council, present and past, were in occupation of houses in the Central Pool. Happily many have been evicted. We are still left with about. 101 members of the Assembly and Council, who are occupying the houses in the Central Pool. The original figure furnished to us by the Government was that 297 houses were placed in the Legislative Assembly Pool and 73 in the Legislative Council Pool. The approach of the Government seems to be that there is acute shortage of residential accommodation for the members of the Assembly and Council. We do not dispute the fact that members of the Assembly and Council are to be provided with accommodation, it is the responsibility of the Government to provide them such accommodation, but in the matter of allotment of residential units the Government cannot act arbitrarily or contrary to the rules. As we were originally told, 370 residential units were available for allotment to members of the Assembly and Council, who together numbered 421, with many of them becoming entitled to allotment of Government premises in the Central Pool by reason of their holding office of Minister, Minister of State, Deputy Minister, Leader of Opposition, Chief Whip as also the Speaker, Deputy Speaker, Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Council etc., and 370 residential units would have, perhaps, met the said reduced requirement in those pools. It is indeed surprising that the stand of the State is that the single room units in the M.L.A. Hostel were insufficient for the members and, therefore, two units were amalgamated to make one unit. We do not for a moment dispute that the Government is not justified in giving better facilities to the members of the Assembly and the Council, but when it is its case that it is running short of accommodation, we fail to understand the justification for reducing the number of residential units by amalgamating two units into one, with the result that the number has been reduced by 49 on account of such amalgamation, as is evident from the affidavit filed on 17-10-1996. We may also notice that large number of Chairman, Vice-Chairman etc. of the Government Companies, Corporations and Organisations in whose favour allotment was expressly prohibited by the rules were allotted residential premises in the Central Pool, and many of them were ultimately compelled to vacate the same. Even now it appears three of them are still in possession of such premises, and the Government has not been able to get those premises vacated on the plea that eviction proceeding under the rules has not been concluded. Conveniently, there is no appellate authority and the matters are pending before the appellate authority. It is, therefore, not known when the appeals will be disposed of. The Government could have no difficulty in nominating any other officer as the appellate authority, but for reasons best known to it, it has chosen not to do so.