The Patna High Court in its judgment has upheld the government order which said that the leader of the Opposition in the Bihar Legislative Assembly Mr Tejashwni Yadav to vacate the bungalow(house) which he had occupied while he was the Minister in the parliament. The ex-minister had filed a petition in the court regarding the government order stating that since he is still the leader of the opposition (Rashtriya Janta Party), so he should still enjoy the benefit that he gets in the form of the bungalow in which he is living currently while the new government in its order has stated that the house in which Tejashvi Yadav resided is to be allocated to the new Deputy Chief Minister.
The writ petition which he had filed got dismissed after which the ex-minister approached the division bench by filing certain letters for the same patent appeal. The matter was heard by the bench comprising Justice Anjana Mishra and Chief Justice Amreshwar Pratap Sahi in which they are seeking relation as to whether the re-allotment or the re-allocation of the bungalow can be done with the change in position of the authority from the Deputy Chief Minister to the Leader of Opposition and to what extent it is feasible to hold the bungalow? The ex-minister has appealed against an order dated 6th October last year given by a single judge which was to swap his residence with that of his successor.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE:
Mr Tejashvi Yadav had been allotted a sprawling bungalow situated at Deshratan Marg which is at close proximity to the Raj Bhavan and the Chief Minister’s Official Residence in the year 2015. This bungalow was given to him when he was appointed as the Bihar Deputy Chief Minister of the Grand Alliance government headed by Nitish Kumar. Now, after one year of the Loss of power from the state of the Rashtriya Janta Dal (RJD) because of the alleged walk out of Nitish Kumar from the party’s alliance. After which he became the leader of the opposition but still, he is living in that bungalow and enjoying all the privileges. Now, the new government in power of the state have issued an order stating the bungalow in which currently Mr Yadav is residing is to be allocated to the New Deputy Chief Minister and have asked Mr Yadav to vacate the house since he is no more in power. Seeking to the orders of the government earlier he filed a writ petition in the court which got rejected by a single judge and now he has moved to the Divisional bench of the Patna High Court which has also rejected.
INTERPRETATION GIVEN BY THE PATNA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE:
The order given by the Patna high court in the case is that it is obvious that there was a change in the government as well as the ministers which have changed the whole situation in the matter. Now that the subsequent government has ordered the allotment of the bungalow to its newly elected leaders which are certainly a matter of right of the government and they cannot be deprived of their right. The court after understanding all the facts of the case interpreted that the category of the (furnished) bungalow will remain the same as there has been no arbitrariness on behalf of the government and the sole right of discretion as to whom to give the house lies with the state government. Also, the court added that it is not a case of the appellant that by the virtue of the new allotment to the appellant of the said Bungalow (situated in polo Marg, Patna) which is under the possession of the Respondent no.5 is of a lesser category which under the law is not available to a Minister.
VERDICT GIVEN BY THE COURT IN THE CASE:
The Patna high court while concluding have added certain remarks to the case stating that our proud nation got independence under the Leadership of the Great Freedom Fighter of which everyone throughout the world is familiar as Mahatma Gandhi who when was alive lived for his ideas, while his shelter was the sky and the earth beneath with all humanity as his own family. Following his ideas, we see that the debate over the allotment of a Bungalow to a minister should not be a reason of dispute as if the matter is of a division of some kind of private property.
The court even stated in its verdict that the facilities which are being provided to various government officials are not for their personal use but are for the extent on the place where the representative serves the interesting subject to the rights, aspiration and social welfare of the society and dismissed the plea of Mr Tejashvani Yadav.
