Cancellation is arbitrary: Raghav Chadha on Delhi court's order saying no vested right to govt bungalow

After a Delhi court vacated its interim order saying that Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MP Raghav Chadha does not possess a vested right to continue occupying a government Type-7 bungalow in Pandara Road after the allotment has been cancelled and privilege stands withdrawn, the latter termed it arbitrary.

These bungalows in question are allocated to lawmakers who have served as ministers, chief ministers, or governors.

Earlier, the interim order by Additional District Judge Sudhanshu Kaushik of Patiala House Courts had directed the Rajya Sabha Secretariat to refrain from evicting Chadha from the bungalow without following due legal process.

Chadha in his statement has said that the cancellation of his duly allotted official accommodation was arbitrary and was done without any prior notice to him.

He has said that the action is unprecedented in the more than 70-year history of the Rajya Sabha, where a sitting member has been removed from their duly allotted accommodation, despite having more than four years remaining in their tenure as a Rajya Sabha member.

He has said that the order has several irregularities and the subsequent steps taken by the Rajya Sabha Secretariat clearly contravene established rules and regulations.

The court's decision came in Chadha's suit against the Rajya Sabha Secretariat's decision to cancel the bungalow's allotment to him, following an order issued on March 3.

The Secretariat had then filed a review application seeking the recall of the interim order by the judge, which now stands vacated.

Raghav went on to say that the entire manner in which the exercise was conducted leaves him with no option but to believe that it was carried out at the behest of the BJP for their political motives and vested interests, with the aim of silencing and stifling political criticism from vocal parliamentarians like him.

In vacating the interim order, the court rejected Chadha's argument that once accommodation is allocated to a Member of Parliament, it cannot be canceled under any circumstances during their entire tenure.

He has said that cancellation of this accommodation without any justification indicates that this entire suo moto exercise was initiated to wrongly target and victimise him.

"Coupled with my suspension as a Member of Parliament, which was initiated by the ruling party, it is evident that the BJP is leaving no stone unturned to target vocal Members of Parliament," he said.

"This constitutes unwarranted interference in the discharge of their duties as representatives of the House and represents a low point in the realm of vendetta politics," he said.

He said that many of my neighbours in the same residential complex are first-time MPs who have been allotted similar accommodation beyond their entitlement. Notably, about 118 out of 240 Rajya Sabha Members are residing in accommodations exceeding their entitlement.

He said that however, selectively targeting and interfering with vocal representatives who are offering strong opposition to the BJP on the floor of the house and upholding a healthy democracy is regrettable for our nation.

"I will be taking appropriate legal action in due course. Needless to say that I will continue to fearlessly raise the voices of the people of Punjab and India, regardless of the challenges or costs involved,” he added.

It was the Secretariat's case that the interim relief had been granted to Chadha without adhering to the procedure outlined in Section 80(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).

According to the Secretariat, a hearing should have been conducted for both sides before granting such relief under the provision.

The court noted that for the purpose of determining whether an application should be granted under Section 80(2) of the CPC, the court is supposed to give a hearing to both sides, consider the nature of the suit, and assess the urgency of the matter before making a final decision.

It said that the interim relief granted in Chadha's case had been an apparent error, and the order dated April 18 was recalled and vacated.

The court concluded that since no urgent or immediate relief was required in the suit, the plaintiff should re-file the case after complying with the requirements of Section 80(1) of CPC.

In April, the court had directed the secretariat not to dispossess Chadha from the bungalow during the pendency of the application without due process of law.

The judge had concluded that a prima facie case was established for issuing directions to prevent Chadha from being dispossessed from the bungalow without due process of law.