- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
S.D Bandi v. Divisional Traffic Officer, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The present order is a continuation of earlier proceedings concerning large-scale unauthorised occupation of “general pool” Government accommodation in New Delhi. Pursuant to a prior order dated 24-01-2006, reported at (2011) 15 SCC 744, the Union of India filed successive affidavits revealing that:
- 497 general-pool houses were occupied without authority by personnel attached to various organs of the State, in addition to 36 such houses occupied by Members of Parliament (MPs).
- By the date of the present order, 349 of these houses (and one of the 36 houses occupied by MPs) had been vacated.
- Multiple legal proceedings were pending in different fora regarding eviction of the remaining occupants, including 60 cases in the Delhi High Court, 54 cases before the Estate Officer and 16 cases in other courts.
The Court is now reviewing compliance, seeking full particulars of vacated premises, current occupants, and the status of each pending case. It also addresses requests by the Ministry of Culture for extension of occupation by 25 artists and examines regularisation of allotments in favour of certain MPs and other individuals.
Legal Issues Presented
The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Order dated 24-01-2006 [(2011) 15 SCC 744] | Earlier interim directions requiring the Union of India to disclose and act upon unauthorised occupation of Government accommodation. | The present order builds upon those directions, calling for updated affidavits and further compliance. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court’s analysis is primarily supervisory and fact-driven:
- Assessment of compliance: The Court notes the partial success in securing 350 vacancies but observes that the Union of India has not specified the category, number or location of these vacated houses. It therefore instructs that detailed particulars be placed on record.
- Scrutiny of fresh allotments: The Court requires disclosure of whether any of the 350 vacated units have since been allotted, and if so, whether such allotments conform to rules or are products of discretionary powers.
- Monitoring pending litigation: With respect to 60 High Court cases (19 of which have had stays vacated), 54 Estate Officer cases and 16 cases in other courts, the Court directs the Union of India to file stage-wise details, including the defences raised by occupants.
- Artists’ occupation: Because the Ministry of Culture has requested extension of stay for 25 artists despite admitting their occupation is unauthorised, the Court demands an explanatory affidavit from that Ministry.
- Members of Parliament: Notices are issued to the Secretaries-General of both Houses of Parliament to respond to allegations that 35 MPs continue to occupy general-pool houses improperly. The Union of India must explain how the allotments of five MPs (said to be “regularised”) and another 27 persons were validated.
- Comprehensive disclosure obligation: Names, addresses and case numbers for all categories of unauthorised occupants—those in court proceedings, the artists, MPs and the 27 regularised persons—must be provided.
- Future timetable: The Court sets a six-week deadline for the required affidavits and fixes specific hearing dates in August 2006 for similar matters concerning the States of West Bengal, Jammu & Kashmir, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Orissa and Madhya Pradesh.
Holding and Implications
DIRECTIONS ISSUED; MATTER ADJOURNED TO 5-09-2006 FOR COMPLIANCE.
Immediate effect: multiple detailed affidavits must be filed by the Union of India, the Ministry of Culture, and the Secretaries-General of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha within six weeks. The Court also schedules further hearings for related state matters. The order is supervisory in nature and does not set a new legal precedent; its impact is confined to enforcing accountability and transparency in Government housing allotments.
Order
1. Pursuant to our last order dated 24-1-2006 (2011) 15 SCC 744, further affidavit has been filed today on behalf of the Union of India. According to the various affidavits filed so far on behalf of the Union of India, 497 houses of general pool were occupied unauthorisedly by the persons belonging to different limbs of the State, apart from 36 houses of the said pool in occupation of Members of Parliament whose occupation is also unauthorised. We are happy to note that out of that, 349 houses have been vacated, apart from one house of general pool vacated by Member of Parliament, but it has not been stated anywhere that these 350 vacated houses fall under which category. Details of the same which would include number, location and category of those houses, be furnished by the Union of India to this Court.
2. That apart, we would like to know from the Union of India as to whether out of these 350 houses, they have made allotments to anybody and if so, to whom and whether according to their entitlement or by exercising discretionary powers under the relevant rules, if any. In case no allotment has been made, list of proposed allotments together with entitlement should be filed. All these details must be furnished in the affidavit to be filed by a responsible officer of the department concerned.
3. It has been stated in the affidavit that in relation to 60 houses, cases are pending in the Delhi High Court, out of which, we are told that, in 19 cases stay has been vacated by the High Court although main cases are pending and now proceedings would continue before the Estate Officer. In the affidavit it shall be stated as to what is the stage of those proceedings and what are the defences taken by the unauthorised occupants therein.
4. Out of remaining 41 cases pending in the Delhi High Court, in relation to one case, we are informed that the house has been vacated. But regarding the other 40 cases, the Union of India has not made any statement, which shall be made in the affidavit.
5. In relation to 16 cases pending in different courts, other than the High Court and Estate Officer, we are told that six cases have been disposed of and the houses have been vacated. The Union of India shall furnish details as to what is the status of the remaining 10 cases.
6. In relation to 54 houses, it has been stated that proceedings before the Estate Officer are pending. In this regard also similar affidavit should be filed as directed above in relation to 19 cases.
7. It has been stated that 25 houses have been occupied by the artists whose occupation is unauthorised, but the Ministry of Culture has requested the department concerned not to initiate any proceeding for eviction as they have approached the Cabinet Committee on Accommodation for extension of their period of occupation. Let an affidavit be filed in this regard by the Ministry of Culture as to why they have taken steps for extension of period in relation to these 25 artists, when, according to the Union of India, their occupation in unauthorised.
8. It has been stated in various affidavits filed on behalf of the Union of India that 36 houses of general pool are in occupation of the Members of Parliament though they are not entitled to continue therein and the department concerned is entitled to get vacant possession thereof. We have been informed that out of 36, one Member has vacated the accommodation whereas 35 Members are still in occupation.
9. Issue notice to the Secretary Generals of Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha to file response in relation to statements made in various affidavits filed on behalf of the Union of India before this Court on 16-11-2005, 23-1-2006, 5-4-2006 and 13-7-2006 in relation to the aforesaid 35 houses. It has been stated in the affidavit that out of 35 occupants, occupation of five persons has been regularised. In affidavit the Union of India shall explain under what circumstances and authority, orders of regularisation have been passed.
10. In spite of our earlier order, the Union of India in its affidavit, has not disclosed the circumstances and authority under which allotments made in favour of 27 persons have been regularised, which shall also be disclosed in the affidavit.
11. In the affidavit number of cases, names and addresses of unauthorised occupants in relation to the aforesaid 60 cases pending in the High Court, 10 cases pending in other courts and 19 and 54 cases pending before the Estate Officer shall be mentioned. That apart, the names and addresses of 25 artists, 35 Members of Parliament and 27 persons whose allotments have been regularised, shall also be mentioned in the affidavit.
12. An affidavit in relation to the aforesaid facts must be filed on behalf of the Union of India, Ministry of Culture as well as the Secretary Generals of Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha within a period of six weeks from today. List the matter on 5-9-2006.
13. So far as the matter in relation to vacation of houses from unauthorised occupants within the States of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, West Bengal, Jammu and Kashmir, Orissa and Madhya Pradesh is concerned, the same shall be considered on the following dates on which dates the case shall be listed:
(a) West Bengal and Jammu and Kashmir: 24-8-2006;
(b) Bihar and Uttar Pradesh: 30-8-2006; and
(c) Orissa and Madhya Pradesh: 31-8-2006.
On behalf of the aforesaid States, latest status report shall be filed within a period of four weeks from today.
Court Masters
Alert