High Court Rebukes Estates Department Over Delay in Evicting Former Ministers from Government Bungalows
||Black and White Digital News ||
||December 16,2024 ||
JAMMU: In an ongoing Public Interest Litigation (PIL No. 17/2020) before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice Rajesh Sekhri expressed severe dissatisfaction with the Estates Department for its failure to evict unauthorized occupants from government accommodations. The case, which calls for the eviction of former ministers and legislators who continue to occupy official residences despite no longer holding office, has highlighted issues of accountability, misuse of public property, and bureaucratic inefficiency.
The High Court criticized the Estates Department for its lack of urgency and discriminatory approach in implementing eviction orders. Prominent individuals, including former Deputy Chief Minister Kavinder Gupta, BJP President Sat Sharma, and ex-MLCs Surinder Ambardar and Zaffar Iqbal Manhas, were named among those still occupying government properties without authorization. The court noted that such inaction undermines the rule of law and public trust in governance.
Advocate Sheikh Shakeel Ahmed, representing the petitioner, accused the Estates Department of shielding high-profile individuals while selectively evicting others, thereby creating an inequitable system. Despite repeated court orders, including one mandating the personal appearance of the Administrative Secretary of the Estates Department, compliance has remained inadequate. A status report submitted to the court revealed that while 15 former officials and their families have vacated their accommodations following eviction notices, many others remain in possession of these properties. Notices for penal rents have been issued, but recovery efforts appear stalled.
The court also questioned the department’s justification for allowing certain individuals, including former Chief Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad and BJP leader Ravinder Raina, to retain government accommodations. It demanded an explanation for why market-rate rents were not imposed on unauthorized occupants, as required by policy guidelines.
The Division Bench has directed the Estates Department to submit an updated status report by January 2, 2025, and warned that further delays would not be tolerated. The court made it clear that the Commissioner/Secretary of the Estates Department could be summoned in person if compliance is not achieved.
This case has significant legal and political implications. It underscores the principle of equality before the law, as the selective eviction of some politicians while others continue to enjoy undue privileges undermines public confidence in governance. Financially, the unauthorized occupation of government properties results in losses to the state exchequer due to unpaid market rents, raising concerns about the management of public resources.
The High Court’s firm stance reflects the judiciary’s role in ensuring accountability and transparency in public administration. By holding the Estates Department to strict standards, the court has sent a clear message that the misuse of public resources by former officials will not be tolerated.
The upcoming hearing on January 2, 2025, will serve as a litmus test for the Estates Department’s ability to adhere to the rule of law and implement court directives. Failure to act decisively could lead to further judicial intervention and heightened scrutiny of public officials.
