Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes MP Govt's Order Cancelling Accommodation Allotted To Congress MLA

The Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjay Yadav and Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla observed that Government's order "does not record any reason and the allotment of accommodation in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled with immediate effect without assigning any reason."

The matter before the Court

Congress Party MLA from Katni, Vidhan Sabha Area, Vijayraghvendra Singh filed a petition challenging the Government's order (dated 01.6.2020), whereby the allotted Government accommodation (situated in Bhopal) to the petitioner had been cancelled.

It may be noted that the petitioner won the Katni, Vidhan Sabha Area Seat in the elections of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Madhya Pradesh which had taken place in the year 2018.

The petitioner, being a MLA, was entitled to government house/accommodation by the State Government. In furtherance to the same, the petitioner was allotted House No. D-14, 74 Bungalows, Bhopal vide allotment order dated 20.3.2020. The period of allotment was co-existent with the tenure of the petitioner as MLA.

However, it was submitted by him that by an order dated 01.6.2020, the said allotment was cancelled without assigning any reason.

He also contended that the order was in violation of the Apex Court's Judgment in Kranti Associates Private Limited vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others (2010) 9 SCC 496.

Alternatively, the petitioner also prayed for a direction to provide him an alternative accommodation at Bhopal.

On the other hand, Government contended that the accommodation allotted to him came under the General Pool Quarter and was not a Quarter coming under the pool of Vidhan Sabha.

It was further stated that if a quarter is being allotted to some Social Worker, Political Party, recognized personality, then as per Rule 10 of Allotment Rules, 2000, the allottee is required to execute bond along with 2 months license fees in advance.

In this backdrop, the Government said that even assuming that petitioner (Vijayraghvendra Singh) is having any locus to allottee under the General Pool by invoking Rule 10 then also, he has not fulfilled the Condition No. 10(9)(b) of the Rules 2000.

However, when a query was made by the Court as to whether this procedure was insisted in respect of other similarly situated allottees, the counsel for the State stated that he had no further instruction in this regard.

It was further submitted by the State that the petitioner was not entitled for the allotment of the quarter because the same was not under the Vidhan Sabha Pool.

In response to this, the Petitioner (Vijayraghvendra Singh) contended that in terms of Rule 13, Chapter-4 of Government Allotment Rules, the houses falling under the Vidhan Sabha Pool could be exchanged with the houses under the General Pool.

Court's Order

In light of the fact that the Order by the Government did not contain any reason with regard to the cancellation of accommodation with immediate effect and that no notice was issued to the Petitioner before passing of the order of cancellation, the High Court quashed the impugned order dated 01.6.2020.

The Court also noted that in the case of Kranti Associates (supra), the Apex Court has clearly laid down that a quasi judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.

Case title - Vijayraghvendra Singh v. State of M.P. and others [W.P. No.10675/2020]

Appearances – Advocates Varun Tankha & Samresh Katare (for the petitioner); Deputy Advocate General Swapnil Ganguly (for the respondent/State).

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order