TITLE: MAHU MOITRA V. ESTATE OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF ESTATES & ORS.
CITATION: W.P. (C) 777/2024 & CM APPL. 3382/2024
DECIDED ON: 18 JANUARY 2024
CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
Facts of the Case
In the case of W.P. (C) 777/2024, Mahua Moitra, an elected Member of Parliament representing Krishnanagar constituency in West Bengal, faced expulsion from the Lok Sabha on 08.12.2023, following a motion of expulsion. Subsequently, the government accommodation allotted to her was canceled on 11.12.2023, with a directive to vacate by 07.01.2024, as per the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act. The petitioner challenged her expulsion before the Supreme Court, which was pending, and sought an extension of time to vacate the government accommodation until the results of the 2024 General Elections. The petitioner, however, received an eviction order on 16.01.2024, prompting her to file a writ petition before the Delhi High Court.
Legal Provisions:
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act. Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Salary, Allowances and Pension of Members of Parliament Act 1954. Housing & Telephone Facilities (Members of Parliament) Rules 1956. Central Government General Pool Residential Accommodation Rules, 2017. Rule 83 of the Central Government General Pool Residential Accommodation Rules, 2017. Section 3B(2) of the Public Premises Act.
Issues Involved:
The legal issues in this case involve the validity of eviction following the petitioner’s Lok Sabha expulsion, the request to retain government accommodation until 2024 elections, and alleged violations of the Public Premises Act.
Court’s Observation and Analysis
In the judgment delivered on 18.01.2024, the court considered the petitioner’s plea for retaining the government accommodation until the 2024 General Elections as primarily driven by political expediency rather than a medical issue. Noting that the petitioner’s expulsion from the Lok Sabha was not stayed by the Supreme Court and that her status as an MP had ceased, the court declined to interfere. It emphasized the pending matter before the Supreme Court and the absence of specific rules governing the eviction of MPs from government accommodation. The court dismissed the application, stating that the petitioner presently had no right to continue in the government accommodation, which was co-terminus with her status as an MP. The judgment further highlighted the potential contradiction in seeking relief from multiple fora and concluded that the court would not invoke Article 226 of the Constitution to restrain the operation of the impugned eviction order. The case was scheduled to be listed before the Roster Bench on 24.01.2024.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Komal Goswami
