Government accommodation: India - Revision history

Jyoti: /* Chief Ministers, former */

2018-06-09T20:42:45Z

‎Chief Ministers, former

Jyoti: /* 2018: SC rules against permanent accommodation for them */

2018-05-08T20:44:55Z

‎2018: SC rules against permanent accommodation for them

Jyoti: /* Artistes, houses for */

2018-05-07T21:55:05Z

‎Artistes, houses for

Jyoti: /* Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act amended/2017 */

2017-07-30T21:31:03Z

‎Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act amended/2017

Jyoti: /* Retention after termination from service */

2017-07-30T21:29:37Z

‎Retention after termination from service

Jyoti: /* Overstaying in government accomodation */

2017-07-17T04:14:38Z

‎Overstaying in government accomodation

Jyoti: /* Bungalows in the LBZ/ 2016 */

2017-02-09T20:13:40Z

‎Bungalows in the LBZ/ 2016

Pdewan: /* SC on memorials in government bungalows */

2016-12-02T20:19:33Z

‎SC on memorials in government bungalows

Pdewan at 20:18, 2 December 2016

2016-12-02T20:18:45Z

Pdewan at 18:18, 2 December 2016

2016-12-02T18:18:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:42, 9 June 2018
Line 51:		Line 51:

	At the time, those affected by the SC order were Union home minister and BJP leader Rajnath Singh, Rajasthan governor Kalyan Singh, Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh Yadav, BSP supremo Mayawati and Congress leaders N D Tiwari and Ram Naresh Yadav. Also at the time, a three-member SC bench headed by Justice Anil R Dave and including Justices N V Ramana and R Banumathi, had also rejected the state's contention that it had to allot bungalows as most of the ex-CMs get Z-plus security. Since the security was being provided by the Centre, giving accommodation was its responsibility too, the apex court said.		At the time, those affected by the SC order were Union home minister and BJP leader Rajnath Singh, Rajasthan governor Kalyan Singh, Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh Yadav, BSP supremo Mayawati and Congress leaders N D Tiwari and Ram Naresh Yadav. Also at the time, a three-member SC bench headed by Justice Anil R Dave and including Justices N V Ramana and R Banumathi, had also rejected the state's contention that it had to allot bungalows as most of the ex-CMs get Z-plus security. Since the security was being provided by the Centre, giving accommodation was its responsibility too, the apex court said.
		+
		+	===…but former CMs find ways out===
		+	[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL%2F2018%2F05%2F28&entity=Ar01017&sk=777047FC&mode=text Dhananjay Mahapatra, Politicians script escape stories as time dilutes rigour of SC orders, May 28, 2018: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+
		+	Twenty days ago, the Supreme Court struck down an Uttar Pradesh law entitling former chief ministers to sprawling government bungalows in posh localities of Lucknow.
		+
		+	Following the SC judgment, the Yogi Adityanath government served notices on Akhilesh Yadav, home minister Rajnath Singh, SP patriarch Mulayam Singh Yadav, BSP supremo Mayawati, Rajasthan governor Kalyan Singh and ailing Congress leader N D Tiwari asking them to vacate the bungalows within 15 days.
		+
		+	These political leaders, having the capability to organise huge rallies at a day’s notice, were found making excuses about finding a suitable house. But Mayawati was different. Overnight, she put up a sign declaring the 13, Mall Road bungalow to be a memorial for Dalit icon and her mentor Kanshi Ram.
		+
		+	Despite the 2013 judgment of the SC in ‘S D Bandi’ case banning conversion of government bungalows into memorials and despite UP amending Section 441 of Indian Penal Code to make overstaying in government bungalows a prosecutable crime under ‘criminal trespass’, her eviction will be difficult.
		+
		+	As the popular and almost unquestionable leader of the revered vote-bank in Dalits, anything said or done to her, even under SC order, has the potential of spiralling into an anti-Dalit narrative. No government would like to annoy Dalits when general elections are less than a year away.
		+
		+	There is history why Mayawati does not want to shift out of the 13, Mall Road bungalow, which is adjacent to her party office. Towards the end of her term as CM, the UP government in 2012 had spent nearly Rs 90 crore to rebuild, refurbish and remodel the house as per her tastes by extensively using pink Italian marble for flooring. The bungalow complex houses a 14-bedroom guest house. Who would voluntarily give up such a luxurious bungalow?
		+
		+	Moreover, she has experienced how the rigour of SC orders wane with retirement of the judge who authors it. Most politicians, who faced the wrong end of the stick from the SC, find themselves getting absolved years later when the matter is dealt by a set of judges completely different from the ones who had passed the order.
		+
		+	In 2003, a bench led by Justice M B Shah had directed CBI probe into the Taj Heritage Corridor scam. The bench continued to monitor the CBI investigation into the scam as well as Mayawati’s alleged disproportionate assets for two more years. The investigation was used as a political tool by the Union government under UPA rule and the SC was told that the agency had tangible proof of her disproportionate assets.
		+
		+	Nine years later, a bench headed by Justices P Sathasivam quashed the disproportionate assets FIR while observing that the SC had never asked for an investigation into Mayawati’s assets as the case before it pertained only to Taj Heritage Corridor scam. Whether the CBI probe had unearthed disproportionate assets or not did not matter to the new bench.
		+
		+	The Union government, till 20 years ago, used its discretion to keep influential journalists, writers, artists, NGOs and opinion makers happy by allotting them houses in Lutyens’ Delhi. This was questioned by the SC in Shiv Sagar Tiwari judgment [1997 (1) SCC 444]. During monitoring of the fact of the case, the SC found then urban development minister Shiela Kaul of abusing her powers to allot shops and stalls to her two grandsons, maidservant of her son, employee of her son-in-law and her friends.
		+
		+	On November 8, 1996, the SC imposed an exemplary fine of Rs 60 lakh on her for acting arbitrarily while handling public property and violating shop allotment norms framed by her in 1994 which mandated inviting of tender. Less than
		+
		+	six years later, another threejudge bench headed by Justice G B Pattnaik waived of the penalty amount taking into consideration that an out of power Kaul was ailing.
		+
		+	Satish Sharma, who as petroleum minister distributed retail outlets (petrol pumps) and dealerships in LPG and kerosene as a largesse, was fined Rs 50 lakh by the SC on November 4, 1996. Nine years later, the CBI case against him, initiated by the Delhi HC and upheld by the SC, was closed as the law ministry under H R Bharadwaj refused to accord sanction for Sharma’s prosecution.
		+
		+	The infamous Jain hawala case too followed the same route. A bench led by then CJI J S Verma had created a scare among the political class by rigorously monitoring CBI probe through a newly devised judicial tool ‘continuous mandamous’ and directed filing of chargesheets against L K Advani, V C Shukla and other prominent politicians. All these efforts came to naught as the Delhi HC quashed the chargesheets saying the evidence was inadmissible. The SC later upheld the HC view.
		+
		+	JMM MPs bribery scam met the same fate. An ill gotten majority by P V Narasimha Rao government in 1993 threatened to send the ex-PM to jail. But the SC rescued him of the ignominy. The story in the coal scam is also similar. While minister of state for coal Santosh Bagrodia faced prosecution, the SC stayed former PM Manmohan Singh’s prosecution though the role of both were similar as per the CBI chargesheet.
		+
		+	The all too familiar leniency to SC orders may not follow the beaten track as far as vacating government bungalows by ex-CMs is concerned because the order was passed by a bench headed by Justice Ranjan Gogoi, who is known for his strictness in implementation of SC orders in letter and spirit. We will have to wait and watch how far Mayawati’s luck runs as Justice Gogoi is not going to retire soon. Rather, he is going to be the Chief Justice of India in October.

	= Delhi (Government of India) =		= Delhi (Government of India) =

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 ==2018: SC rules against permanent accommodation for them==
 [https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/no-permanent-accommodation-for-ex-chief-ministers-says-sc-quashing-up-assembly-law/articleshow/64059316.cms  'No permanent accommodation for ex-chief ministers,' says SC quashing UP Assembly law, May 7, 2018: ''The Times of India'']
 '''HIGHLIGHTS'''

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 Officials said the cabinet committee on accommodation has been giving extension to these occupants after cases are forwarded by the culture ministry . The latter has already sent the list of almost all these artists for further extension to the urban development ministry .
 = Delhi (Government of India) =
 ==Bungalows in the LBZ/ 2016==

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:31, 30 July 2017
Line 129:		Line 129:
	[http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com//Article.aspx?eid=31808&articlexml=VIP-squatters-can-now-be-evicted-in-3-18052017010017 Dipak Dash, VIP squatters can now be evicted in 3 days, may seek relief only from HC, May 18, 2017: The Times of India]		[http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com//Article.aspx?eid=31808&articlexml=VIP-squatters-can-now-be-evicted-in-3-18052017010017 Dipak Dash, VIP squatters can now be evicted in 3 days, may seek relief only from HC, May 18, 2017: The Times of India]

		+	[[File: Eviction from government accommodation, and new rules, as in May 2017.jpg\|Eviction from government accommodation, and new rules, as in May 2017; [http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com//Article.aspx?eid=31808&articlexml=VIP-squatters-can-now-be-evicted-in-3-18052017010017 Dipak Dash, VIP squatters can now be evicted in 3 days, may seek relief only from HC, May 18, 2017: The Times of India]\|frame\|500px]]

	Life just became more difficult for former ministers, MPs and bureaucrats who have overstayed their welcome in government accommodation. The Cabinet approved squeezing the time period for completing their eviction process to only three days against the present 60 days. Moreover, the overstaying allottees can now only approach high courts to get relief.		Life just became more difficult for former ministers, MPs and bureaucrats who have overstayed their welcome in government accommodation. The Cabinet approved squeezing the time period for completing their eviction process to only three days against the present 60 days. Moreover, the overstaying allottees can now only approach high courts to get relief.

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:29, 30 July 2017
Line 125:		Line 125:

	“He is no longer in service.The quarters were allotted to him only as a condition of service,“ district judge A S Jayachandra said. The accused argued that the eviction order was arbitrary and contrary to law and he wasn't given a chance to be heard.		“He is no longer in service.The quarters were allotted to him only as a condition of service,“ district judge A S Jayachandra said. The accused argued that the eviction order was arbitrary and contrary to law and he wasn't given a chance to be heard.
		+
		+	== Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act amended/2017==
		+	[http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com//Article.aspx?eid=31808&articlexml=VIP-squatters-can-now-be-evicted-in-3-18052017010017 Dipak Dash, VIP squatters can now be evicted in 3 days, may seek relief only from HC, May 18, 2017: The Times of India]
		+
		+
		+	Life just became more difficult for former ministers, MPs and bureaucrats who have overstayed their welcome in government accommodation. The Cabinet approved squeezing the time period for completing their eviction process to only three days against the present 60 days. Moreover, the overstaying allottees can now only approach high courts to get relief.
		+
		+	At present, persons overstaying can approach lower courts where it's easy to get stay orders. TOI in November had first reported the urban development ministry had moved this proposal seeking Cabinet approval. The urban development ministry has already hiked the penalty for overstaying in government accommodation, which is almost equivalent to market rent.
		+
		+	Annually , about 7,000-8,000 government houses get vaca ted in Delhi and in 20-25% cases the allottees continue to occupy them. Sources said nearly 200 allottees approach lower courts to get stay orders every year. The current lengthy process not only costs the exchequer in terms of pursuing court cases but also increases waiting time for those entitled to get official accommodation.
		+
		+	At present, about 70 officials are overstaying for more than two years after challenging eviction orders in different courts. Among them Himachal Pradesh CM Virbhadra Singh who has kept his accommodation for more than two years now after having approached a lower court in Delhi.
		+
		+	According to an official release, Cabinet has approved amendments in Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act by inserting definition of “residential accommodation occupation“.It said, “The Amendment will enable the estate officer to apply summary proceedings for evicting unauthorised occupants from residential accommodations allotted for a fixed tenure or for a period heshe holds office on the basis of an order of allotment on licence basis, as non-vacation of such residences leads to unavailability of houses to new incumbents.“

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:14, 17 July 2017
Line 112:		Line 112:

	The UD ministry is also coming out with compilation of all the nearly 300 guidelines that have been issued since 1997 for allotment of government accommodation.		The UD ministry is also coming out with compilation of all the nearly 300 guidelines that have been issued since 1997 for allotment of government accommodation.
		+
		+	==Retention after termination from service==
		+	[http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31808&articlexml=Cant-retain-quarters-after-sacking-19062017005015 `Can't retain quarters after sacking’, June 19, 2017: The Times of India]
		+
		+	A person who has been terminated from service cannot be called an employee and is not entitled to retain the staff quarters provided by the employer, a Delhi court has said.
		+
		+	The court's observation came while upholding a man's eviction from staff quarters of Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences (IHBAS).
		+
		+	The court, while making the law clear to the man who was terminated from service in 2006 after working with IHBAS for nearly 26 years, said he could not show that he was an authorised occupant of the quarter.
		+
		+	“A person who has been terminated from service cannot be called a servant or employee, entitled to retain the quarters... No material is placed by the appellant (man) to show that he is an authorised occupant.
		+
		+	“He is no longer in service.The quarters were allotted to him only as a condition of service,“ district judge A S Jayachandra said. The accused argued that the eviction order was arbitrary and contrary to law and he wasn't given a chance to be heard.

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:13, 9 February 2017
Line 50:		Line 50:

	Officials said a group of ministers in the last government had recommended that ministries relating to the tribunals should pay a lump sum amount to office bearers for rent, travel and daily allowances rather than seeking government accommodation.		Officials said a group of ministers in the last government had recommended that ministries relating to the tribunals should pay a lump sum amount to office bearers for rent, travel and daily allowances rather than seeking government accommodation.
		+
		+	==Lutyens' bungalows, occupied: 2017==
		+	[http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31808&articlexml=10-Lutyens-bungalows-are-still-occupied-by-parties-30012017007016 Dipak Dash, 10% Lutyens' bungalows are still occupied by parties, Jan 30, 2017: The Times of India]
		+
		+
		+	Even a decade after the Supreme Court directive to get offices of political parties shifted from Lutyens' Bungalow Zone (LBZ), government data shows that 10 bungalows are still occupied by political parties.While the maximum four are occupied by Congress, BJP has two such properties in the heart of the country's capital.
		+
		+	The data submitted by the directorate of estates (DoE) to the Central Information Commission (CIC) said no fresh allotment was made after December 2010 when 4, Gurudwara Rakabganj Road was allotted to Bahujan Samaj Party.
		+
		+	The government decision to amalgamate three neighbouring bungalows into one and allot it to BSP had kicked up a political storm during UPA-2. The other parties occupying bungalows are Na tionalist Congress Party , Samajwadi Party and Communist Party of India.
		+
		+	According to details available on DoE's website, a total of 27 suites --18 single and nine double suites --in VP House have been allotted to political parties.
		+
		+	BJP and Congress occupy eight suites each. Janata Dal (United) has two suites while RJD, AIADMK, Shiv Sena, SAD, RLD, DMK, Janata Dal (S) and AAP occupy one each.
		+
		+	Following an SC order, all political parties were required to vacate properties in the LBZ and were given land in other places to build offices. They were required to give up their bungalows within three years of taking possession of the land.
		+
		+	While BJP has started building its office on Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg, Congress is yet to start work to shift its offices out of the LBZ.
		+
		+	Congress has sought urban development ministry's permission to occupy the bungalows for three more years when it expects to complete building its new office.

	=Limits on government accommodation to officers=		=Limits on government accommodation to officers=

@@ Line 63: / Line 63: @@
 Justice Kumar, writing the judgment for the bench, said: “These are matters of serious concern. There is no rule that can be brought to our notice or is available on the records providing that an officer who is posted outside Chandigarh/ Panchkula/Mohali and whose spouse is not entitled to any government accommodation of any category can be provided with two houses, one at the district/division level to which he is transferred and another at Chandigarh and its adjoining area.” TNN
-=SC on memorials in government bungalows=
+=Memorials in government bungalows=
 [http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31808&articlexml=But-SC-says-no-govt-quarter-shall-be-24112015010012 ''The Times of India''], Nov 24 2015

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 [[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary |A ]]
-=Houses for artistes=
+=Artistes, houses for=
 [http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com//Article.aspx?eid=31808&articlexml=Artistes-too-latch-on-to-govt-houses-16062015013019 ''The Times of India''], Jun 16 2015
@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 Officials said the cabinet committee on accommodation has been giving extension to these occupants after cases are forwarded by the culture ministry . The latter has already sent the list of almost all these artists for further extension to the urban development ministry .
 =Limits on government accommodation to officers=

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 [[Category:India |G ]]
-[[Category:Government |G ]]
+[[Category:Government |A ]]
-[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary |G ]]
+[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary |A ]]
 =Houses for artistes=