SURYA PRAKASH GOYAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the letters dated 21.01.2004 and 03.06.2004, the petitioner has challenged the the same before this Court. By the former letter, Additional Area Development Commissioner, CAD, Chambal, Kota had informed the petitioner that he could retain the government accommodation which was assigned to him, provided he pays three times the normal rent. By the latter letter, the petitioner was directed to deposit a penal rent at three times the normal rent, from August, 1993 onwards.

(2.) In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a government employee and he was allotted a government house. By way of rent, a sum of Rs. 160 was deducted from the petitioner's monthly salary. The petitioner also applied for allotment of a house to the Rajasthan Housing Board, Kota. The Rajasthan Housing Board allotted House No. 2/323 in Ganesh Talab Scheme, Kota to the petitioner. The allotment of the house was within the knowledge of the respondents as the petitioner had taken loan from the respondents. On 25.12.1999, the petitioner rented out his personal house to one Mr. Bhim Singh. But, subsequently the petitioner filed a suit for eviction of Mr. Bhim Singh. The suit was decreed by the learned trial Court. Mr. Bhim Singh has challenged the decree of eviction. The said appeal is pending before the Additional District Judge No. 5, Kota.

(3.) According to the Rajasthan Civil Services (Allotment of Residential Accommodation) Rules, ("the Rules", for short) the petitioner ought to have handed over the possession of the Government accommodation allotted to him after the expiry of one year from the date of payment of last instalment of the loan amount taken by him. But the petitioner did not vacate the Government accommodation. The respondent asked the petitioner to furnish the details of the loan, tenancy of Bhim Singh and copies of the plaint, written statement etc., in the suit for eviction filed by him. Vide letter dated 21.01.2004 the petitioner was informed that he could retain the government accommodation on his giving an application, in writing, undertaking to pay three times the normal rent payable for government accommodation. Thereafter, vide letter dated 03.06.2004, the petitioner was required to deposit rent @ 7.50% of the basic pay, or Rs. 675/- whichever is higher for the Government accommodation w.e.f., August, 1993. The petitioner was also required to immediately vacate the government accommodation, failing which disciplinary action would be taken against him. The petitioner sent a letter to the Regional Development Commissioner informing him that he had vacated the government accommodation as on 31.07.2004. According to the petitioner, in spite of his having vacated the government accommodation as on 31.07.2004, the respondents are threatening to proceed against the petitioner in terms of their letters dated 21.01.2004 and 03.06.2004. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid letters, the petitioner has filed this present writ petition before this Court.