'Journalists Given Benefit Of Estate Properties At Throwaway Prices': Allahabad HC To Suo Moto Examine Vires Of UP's AHUCED Act

Observing that the Journalists in the State are being extended the benefit of Estate properties at throw-away prices, the Allahabad High Court last week decided to suo moto consider the vires of The Allotment of Houses under Control of the Estate Department Act 2016 (UP Act of XXIII of 2016) [AHUCED ACT].

The Court decided thus as it found the 2016 Act to be prima facie contrary to the mandate of Article 14 as it purports to extend Government largesse to the persons, who are not authorized or are not engaged in any Government functions.

Furthermore, the Court also directed the Chief Secretary of State Government to revisit as to how the Journalists are being extended the benefit of Estate properties at throwaway prices and to revisit the entitlement for allotment keeping in view the object for which the Act was enacted.

For context, the 2016 Act aims to regulate the allotment of houses under the control of the Estate Department of the State Government to the employees and officers of the State Government, Employees associations, political parties, journalists, officers of All India Service/judicial service, Trust and Justices.

The case in brief

This order was passed by a bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia last week while dealing with a writ petition filed by one Alok Awasthi, a journalist based in Luckow, challenging a UP government's order for getting the premises allotted to by him in 1999, in Lucknow, evicted through the use of police force in January 2014.

On the other hand, filing a counter in the matter, the State Government submitted that the petitioner was allotted the premises based on some non-statutory rules of 1985, as per which, a Committee comprising of the Secretary to the Chief Minister, Secretary to the Estate Department and Director, Information used to recommend the allotment of accommodation to journalists. Another provision in the rules provided that the allotment was to continue only till the time the journalists continued to work at Lucknow.

It was further submitted in the Counter affidavit that as per the list issued by the Director, Information of Media Representatives, the petitioner is not an accredited journalist and thus he was neither entitled to allotment of accommodation nor is he entitled to retain the accommodation.

Hence, in December 2012, the petitioner was served with a notice requiring him to vacate the house and as the petitioner chose not to vacate the house in question, a letter was sent in January 2014 to the District Magistrate to get the premises vacated and in fact, the petitioner himself had given in writing an undertaking to vacate the premises on January 21, 2014.

Lastly, it was also apprised to the bench that at the relevant point in time, allotment of the government accommodation was governed by the Government Order of May 1985, wherein the persons entitled to allotment of government accommodation were specified and the said government order continued to govern the allotment of the premises till the year 2016 when the State Government enacted an act known as the AHUCED Act 2016.

High Court's observations

Having considered the submissions of counsels for both parties, the Court noted that the allotment of the house to the petitioner was made before the framing of the 2016 Act and was governed by the non-statutory rules contained in the government order, wherein no protection was afforded to the allottees.

The Court further notes that the petitioner continued to occupy the premises despite giving an undertaking in the year 2014 and there was no order of allotment in his favour after the 2016 Act came into force, therefore, the Court held that that continuation of the petitioner in the premise in question is without any authority of law and he is liable to vacate the premises.

Against this backdrop, the Court directed the petitioner to vacate the premises in Four months and to hand over the vacant and physical possession to the Estate Department. He was also directed to pay the outstanding amount of rent to the respondents in case the same has not been paid, within four months.

Suo Moto Cognizance

While disposing of the plea in the abovementioned terms, the Bench observed that the 2016 Act confers uncanalised and unbridled powers for allotment to journalists, trusts and societies, who do not even perform any duties which are akin to government duties or public functions.

The Court also noted that uncanalised powers have been conferred for allotment of government properties to journalists, trusts and societies and the allotments in some cases have continued indefinitely.

In this regard, the Court referred to the Supreme Court's judgments in the cases of Union of India vs Onkar Nath Dhar LL 2021 SC 372, Lok Prahari (I) v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2016) and Lok Prahari (II) v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018) wherein the Top Court had taken exception to the allocation of government bungalows to constitutional functionaries after such functionaries demit public office(s). In the Onkar Nath case, the Apex Court had said that government accommodation is only meant for serving officers and officials and not to retirees as a benevolence and distribution of largesse.

Consequently, finding the 2016 Act to be prima facie arbitrary, the Court took suo moto cognizance of the issue and directed the Registry to put the matter before the appropriate Division Bench hearing the challenge to the vires of the statutory enactments.

Case title - Alok Awasthi vs. Additional District Judge-4 Lucknow And Another [WRIT - C No. - 1000861 of 2014]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 395

Click Here To Read/Download Order