news details |
|
|
| HC dismisses petition of ex-ministers, legislators challenging eviction notice | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Feb 24: High Court has dismissed the petition of Yogesh Sawhney Ex-Minister, Ajay Sadhotra Ex-Minister and Ashok Sharma Ex-MLC challenging the eviction notice issued by the state.
Justice Alok Aradhe after hearing senior advocate M K Bhardwaj and Advocates Ajay Vaid, Ajay Sharma and VB Gupta for the petitioner whereas Advocate General Jehangir Iqbal Ganai with government advocate Ahstam Bhat for the state, observed that cases of the petitioners were considered by the Committee and the Committee has taken a decision in cases of the petitioners that they be shifted to hired accommodation for a period of six months, subject to vacation of the government order on or before 31st December, 2015.
It has further been held by the Committee that the petitioners shall be provided adequate security cover as per their category of entitlement. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed, asking the petitioners to vacate the accommodations. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that their cases have not been considered in the light of observations made in Paragraph No. 17 of the judgment dated 1st May, 2015 passed by the Srinagar Wing of this Court in OWP No. 545/2015, does not deserve acceptance. Justice Aradhe further observed that admittedly the petitioners do not have any legal right to retain the government accommodations. In the absence of any legal right, the petitioners cannot seek Writ of Mandamus. The Supreme Court in S.D. Bandi's case held that it is unfortunate that the employees, officers, representatives of people and other high dignitaries continue to stay in the residential accommodation provided by the Government of India though they are no longer entitled to such accommodation.
Many of such persons continue to occupy residential accommodation commensurate with the office(s) held by them earlier and which are beyond their present entitlement. The unauthorized occupants must recollect that rights and duties are correlative as the rights of one person entail the duties of another person similarly the duty of one person entails the rights of another person. Observing this, the unauthorized occupants must appreciate that their act of overstaying in the premises directly infringes the right of another. No law or directions can entirely control this act of disobedience but for the self-realization among the unauthorized occupants. The matter is disposed of with the above terms and no order is required in IAs for impleadment and intervention." With these observations High Court dismissed the petitions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
