LJ 235 , 2016 (118 ) ALR 367 , 2016 4 AWC4226 SC , 2016 (4 )ESC516 (SC ), 2016 INSC 566 , 2016 (4 )J.L.J.R.128 , 2016 (II )OLR546 , 2016 (4 )PLJR132 , 2016 (3 )RCR(Civil)850 , 2016 (7 )SCALE484 , (2016 )8 SCC389 , 2016 (7 ) SCJ 669 , [2016 ]4 SCR1026 , 2016 (5 )SLR141 (SC ), (2016 )3 UPLBEC2105 , ,MANU/SC/0835/2016
Anil R. Dave#N.V. Ramana#R. Banumathi#355SC4550Judgment/OrderAIR#ALJ#ALR#AWC#ESC#INSC#JLJR#MANU#OLR#PLJR#RCR (Civil)#SCALE#SCC#SCJ#SCR#SLR#UPLBECAnil R. Dave,SUPREME COURT OF INDIA2016-8-316910,16939,17163,17095,588406,588408 -->
MANU/SC/0835/2016
True Court CopyTM English
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 657 of 2004 (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
Decided On: 01.08.2016
Appellants: Lok Prahari Vs. Respondent: State of U.P. and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Anil R. Dave, N.V. Ramana and R. Banumathi JUDGMENT
Anil R. Dave, J.
1. A short but serious and significant issue has been raised in this public interest litigation, which pertains to government bungalows occupied by former Chief Ministers of the State of Uttar Pradesh.
2. The Petitioner is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act with objects pertaining to public welfare, etc. and the petition has been filed through its General Secretary, who appeared in person. He is a former officer of All India Services and has ventilated grievances which are definitely serious one, touching the State exchequer and conduct of the persons who were Chief Ministers of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The main submission made in the petition is that several former Chief Ministers had occupied Government bungalows of Type VI even after demitting office of the Chief Minister for several years without any right to retain the same, which is not only immoral and illegal, but it also does not befit persons who were Chief Ministers of the State.
3. At the time when the petition was admitted on 13th January, 2006, this Court had passed the following Order:
The challenge in this petition is to the validity of Ex-Chief Ministers Residence Allotment Rules, 1997. The Petitioner claims it to be illegal, malafides and colourable exercise of power. It is also claimed that the Rules, which are non-statutory, could not have been framed in the light of the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Ministers (Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1981.
On the other hand, it has been, inter alia, contended on behalf of the State that in the federal structure, there is no bar if provision is made for allotment of residential accommodation to ex-Chief Ministers of the State. It is also contended that the matter deserves to be examined further in the light of the provisions of the President's (Emoluments and Pension) Act, 1951. The further contention is that the former Presidents and the Prime Ministers are also allotted residential accommodation after they cease to hold those positions.
In our view, the writ petition raises important questions, which require deeper consideration. Accordingly, while issuing Rule, we direct that notice be........