ABDUL RAHIM RATHER Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, a former Legislator challenges the impugned notice bearing No. DDES/Pvt. House/2016/681-82 dtd. 6/4/2016, in terms whereof he has been asked to vacate the Government accommodation by or before 15/4/2016, failing which action as warranted under rules shall be taken without any further notice. Petitioner seeks quashment of the notice by allowing the writ petition with further direction to allow him to retain the accommodation. Brief facts relevant for disposal of the writ petition are detailed out as under:-

(2.) On notice respondents1 to 3 have filed objections/ reply, supported by the affidavit of Deputy Director, Estates inter alia, questioning the maintainability of the writ petition for the relief claimed by the petitioner on the ground that none of the rights stands violated, which formed the basis for grant of such relief. It is stated that petitioner cannot claim Government accommodation as a matter of right, as he is not eligible for such accommodation in terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It is admitted that petitioner was allotted house bearing No. H-7 at Friends Enclave at Srinagar Airport and on expiry of the term of the allotment, petitioner has lost right to seek retention, required in terms of Regulations, 2004, issued vide Government Order No. 169-GAD of 2004 dtd. 10/2/2004. It is stated that on failure of the petitioner to surrender the possession of the said accommodation, the Government has declared him as unauthorized occupant. It is stated that similarly situated persons/Ex. MLAs, had also filed writ petitions before this Court together with the writ petition OWP No. 545/2015 titled Choudhary Mohammad Ramzan Vs. State of J&K and Ors., which stands disposed of with direction to consider the case of the petitioners after the recommendations of the Committee, constituted pursuant to such direction. It is stated that the Government constituted a Committee vide Government order No. 240-Est of 2015 dtd. 16/11/2015, headed by the ADGP (Security) and on examination of the issues related to the subject, the Committee made recommendations to the Government.

(3.) That some former Ministers/Legislators, including the petitioner appeared before the Committee, constituted vide Government order (Supra) and most of them had filed written representation. It is stated that the Committee decided that the unauthorized occupants, including the petitioner had to be simply informed to vacate the hired accommodation, it is how, the petitioner was asked to vacate the Government accommodation. The respondent Estates Department in the objections has made reference to the recommendation of the Committee. Relevant portion is also reproduced in the objections and applied to the petitioner's case, which is also extracted herein as under:-