Jammu December-23-2022- A Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Comprising Chief Justice (A) Tashi Rabstan and Justice Rajesh Sekri, dismissed the appeal with costs Rs 25000/- filed by Choudhary Lal Singh Former Minister.
The present application has been preferred by a former Minister, Member of the Parliament and Member of Legislative Assembly of the erstwhile State of J&K, Ch. Lal Singh seeking an injunction against the respondents from evicting him from Government Bungalow No. 2-PWD, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu till Government re-assesses and decides the issue of his security as ordered by this Court on the basis of stand taken by the respondents in the aforetitled Public Interest Litigation (PIL, for short).
The case set up by the applicant is that on account of various militants attacks on his life and constant threat perceptions, he was enlisted in the category of Z-Security of CRPF by the Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. It is allegation of the applicant that persons, who are under threat perception, are occupying Government accommodations, but a departure has been made in his case and Government has taken a different view, due to political rivalry and because of the reason that he is a political opponent of the present dispensation at the Centre and in the Union Territory. It is case of the applicant that proceedings under the J&K Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized occupants) Act, 1988 (for short Public Premises Act) were initiated against him. He assailed the said proceedings and preferred a writ petition bearing WP(C) No. 2443 of 2022. The said writ petition came to be dismissed as withdrawn by learned Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.11.2022. However, applicant was given six weeks time to vacate the Government accommodation in question. It is further case of the applicant that after the pronouncement of aforesaid order, he has come to know that in the present PIL the Government of India has taken a categoric stand that people, who are occupying the accommodation for security reasons, need to be protected. Referring to various orders dated 08.07.2022, 07.10.2022, 01.12.2020. 05.12.2020, 22.12.2020 and 23.11.2021 passed by this Court from time to time, the applicant has asserted that these orders would suggest that till threat perception is re-assessed by the Government, the persons occupying the Government accommodation will not be disturbed. According to the applicant, the stand taken by the Government and orders passed by this Court from time to time would suggest that security of such persons was to be re-assessed and then only, they are to be evicted from the Government accommodation taking into consideration their threat perception and not otherwise.
Division Bench after hearing Sr. Adv KS Johal with Adv Supreet Johal for the Lal Singh whereas AAG Amit Gupta for the UT, observed that The case set up by the applicant is that since the accommodation in question was co-terminus with his security arrangements, which are required to be made for a Z-category protectee, therefore, in the absence of re-assessment of his security or downgrading of threat perception to his life, respondents be restrained from evicting him from the Government accommodation in question.
DB further observed that there is no doubt that the applicant, being a former Minister, Member of the Parliament and Member of the Legislative Assembly is entitled to proper security cover, which is required to be reviewed/re-assessed from time to time, however, there is nothing on the record to suggest that there is any policy or guideline which obligates the Central Government or the Government of UT for that matter to provide official accommodation to Z-Category protectee.
DB carefully gone through all the communications, referred by Sr. Counsel appearing for the applicant and there is nothing to suggest that persons occupying the Government accommodations can be evicted only after the review/re-assessment of their threat perceptions. As a matter of fact, this Court vide order dated 05.12.2020 has clarified this position in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said order which reads thus In response to our query, we are informed that there is no requirement in law for the government to provide accommodation as well to a person who is being provided a security cover. In any case, even if accommodation was required to be provided in exceptional circumstances, the accommodation of a former chief minister/minister or a retired bureaucrat cannot be the same after his ceasing to occupy the office as he was occupying when he was in office.”
DB further observed that it is own case of the applicant that proceedings under Public Premises Act were initiated against him, he assailed the proceedings and preferred a writ petition in this Court. The applicant himself withdrew the writ petition and the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. However, the applicant was given six weeks time to vacate the Government Bunglow in question. Since the said period of six weeks would expire on 27.12.2022, the applicant has come up with the present application.
DB further observed that Though applicant has admitted that the writ petition filed by him against proceedings initiated against him under the Public Premises Act was dismissed as withdrawn by learned Single Bench of this Court, yet he has come up with the instant applicant with the sole intention to prolong his unauthorized occupation of the Government Bungalow, when the period of six weeks granted to him for vacation of the Bungalow would expire tomorrow on 27.12.2022. This amounts of an abuse of the process of law. For what has been discussed hereinabove, it is evident that security assessment and entitlement to Government accommodation are two different issues and cannot be intermingled to defeat the process of law. The present application filed by the applicant is nothing but an abuse of the process of law.
DB further observed that the present application along with connected CM No. 7468/2022, being devoid of merit, is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 25,000/- to be deposited in the Advocates’ Welfare Fund within a period of two weeks, failing which, the Registry shall maintain the index. JNF