Rajiv Sahai Endlaw JUDGMENT
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), was premised on a news article published in the magazine India Today of 29th July, 1998 reporting that a number of politicians and political parties in occupation of government accommodation allotted to them were in default of payment of electricity, water and telephone charges with respect thereto and that no steps were being taken by the municipal and other governmental agencies for recovery of the said public dues. It was further reported that some politicians and political parties also owed monies to five star hotels run by India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. (ITDC), a Public Sector Corporation, for events, functions held therein or for use thereof and that the ITDC, run and managed by bureaucrats under the control of the said politicians, had also not taken any action for recovery of the said dues which were again public monies. Reliefs, in this petition, of issuance of directions to (i) Cabinet Secretary; (ii) Ministry of Urban Development; (iii) Ministry of Telecommunications; (iv) Ministry of Tourism Development; and, (v) New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC), to recover the dues with penal interest at 24% per annum from the defaulter politicians and political parties was claimed in the petition.
2. The petition was entertained and vide order of the very first date i.e. 24th September, 1998, ITDC and Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL) were also joined as respondents to the petition and notice issued to all the respondents. On the contention of the counsel for MTNL that the dues were owed to Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) also, BSNL was also impleaded as respondent to the petition.
3. In the last nearly 18 years for which the petition is pending, this Court has endeavoured to make the public bodies to whom the monies were owed recover their dues by directing them to take resort to all means thereof. Alas, without much success. The zeal, which the same public bodies show to recover similar dues from other citizens not yielding any power, was found to be totally missing and which in fact had resulted in the arrears accumulating.
4. The possibility of having the recoveries effected through the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha Secretariats was also explored. Rule 23 of the Members of Parliament (Travelling and Daily Allowances) Rule, 1957 framed under the Salary and Allowances of Members of Parliament Act, 1954 provides for deduction of certified government dues such as house rent, telephones dues from the next salary or travelling allowance or daily allowance of the Member. It was thus enquired from MTNL and NDMC as to why they had not approached the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha Secretariats in this regard. Notice was issued to the said Secretariats as well. The order dated 13th October, 2004 records the assurance of the Lok Sabha Secretariat that a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month will be deducted from the salaries/allowances of the 51 sitting MPs who owed dues to NDMC and of the 11 MPs who owed dues to MTNL. Similarly the Rajya Sabha Secretariat also informed on that date that recoveries were being made from the allowances of the sitting MPs. The order dated 15th March, 2007 however records the stand of the Secretariats of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha that the amounts due were huge and it was not possible to recover the same by way of deduction from the salaries. The Secretariats of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, on 6th August, 2008 informed that they could deduct the dues only from the salaries of sitting MPs and that they could do nothing about the dues of ex-MPs. Vide order dated 9th May, 2012 the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha Secretariats were directed to examine whether deductions ........