||Black and White Digital News ||

||Parvinder Singh August 24,2024||

Jammu: In a significant development in the ongoing Public Interest Litigation (PIL No. 17/2020) concerning the eviction of former MLAs and Ministers from government accommodations, the Division Bench of the High Court of J&K and Ladakh at Jammu, consisting of Chief Justice (Acting) Tashi Rabstan and Justice Puneet Gupta, has taken a firm stance on ensuring compliance with the law. The court directed Amit Gupta, Additional Advocate General (AAG) representing the Union Territory of J&K, to submit an affidavit detailing the individual eviction orders for 43 overstaying occupants. These orders were to be filed with the court’s registry, maintaining the status quo as directed by the court.

Background of the Case:

This PIL, filed by Advocate Sheikh Shakeel Ahmed, seeks the eviction of ex-legislators and ministers who continue to occupy ministerial bungalows and government accommodations long after their terms have ended. The case has garnered attention as it addresses the issue of government properties being used unlawfully by former public officials. Despite clear directives from the Supreme Court of India to evict unauthorized occupants, there has been a noticeable delay in action against 43 individuals who remain in these properties, allegedly due to their political connections.

Court’s Observations and Directives:

Advocate S.S. Ahmed, representing the PIL, emphasized that the delay in evicting these individuals is a blatant violation of the Supreme Court’s rulings and a matter of contempt of court. He pointed out that while over 180 politicians, including former Chief Ministers, have been evicted from government accommodations, these 43 individuals continue to enjoy undue privileges. The court was informed that previous orders dated April 3, 2024, required the Directors of Estates in Jammu and Srinagar to issue individual cancellation or re-allotment orders after giving the occupants a chance to be heard. However, these orders were not placed on record, prompting Ahmed to argue for contempt proceedings against the responsible officials.

In response, AAG Amit Gupta produced two sealed covers containing the compliance report and individual eviction orders, which was a move not directed by the court. This act was criticized by Advocate Ahmed, who argued that the sealed cover practice had been discouraged by the Chief Justice of India, D.Y. Chandrachud, for lacking transparency. The Division Bench agreed with this sentiment, acknowledging that no direction had been given to file the orders in a sealed cover and ordered that a copy be provided to Advocate Ahmed for further action.

Implications and Next Steps:

This case highlights the court’s commitment to ensuring that the rule of law is upheld without bias or favoritism. The Division Bench’s decision to address the issue of sealed covers and insist on transparency is crucial for maintaining public trust in the legal process. The court’s directive to re-notify the matter for September 13, 2024, underscores the urgency and public interest in resolving this issue.

The outcome of this case could set a precedent for similar cases across India, where former public officials continue to occupy government properties unlawfully. The court’s insistence on transparency and accountability could lead to stricter enforcement of eviction orders and a more rigorous application of the law.

This ongoing legal battle serves as a reminder of the importance of accountability in governance and the judiciary’s role in upholding the principles of justice and equality before the law. As the case progresses, it will be watched closely for its potential impact on the eviction of unauthorized occupants from government properties across the Union Territory of J&K and beyond.