Jammu Tawi, March 9
High Court today ordered status quo in case pertaining to accommodation held by the ex-Legislators and ministers.
Division Bench comprising of Justice Janak Raj Kotwal and Justice Sanjeev Kumar, after hearing Advocates Ajay Sharma and D. S. Chauhan, appearing for the appellant and Jahangir Iqbal Ganai, Advocate General with Ahtsham Bhat, GA ordered maintenance of status quo with regard to Govt. Quarter No. 17-A, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, till next date before the Bench on 22.03.2018 and further directed the Learned Advocate General to keep available the record of the next date.
Ajay Kumar Sadhotra, former minister and Member Legislative Council had challenged the Judgment of Single Bench of J&K High Court on the ground that the Estates Officer, without adhering to the provisions of Section 4 of the J&K Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1988 and without declaring the appellant as unauthorised occupant of Govt. Quarter No. 17-A, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, by importing his satisfaction on the basis of the report of Designate Committee headed by ADGP (Security), J&K, Jammu dated 19.12.2015 issued eviction notice dated 01.04.2016 in an arbitrary and illegal manner.
Contention raised by the appellant in Para No. 7 of the Supplementary Affidavit that the ex-Legislators, Ministers, Member Parliaments of the Ruling dispensation have been allowed to retain the Government accommodation, whereas, the appellant has been subjected to hostile discrimination which tantamount to violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India, has been brushed aside in as much as no finding has been returned by the Writ Court.
Supplementary Affidavit filed by the appellant before the Writ Court was not responded to by the State Government and was deemed to have been admitted. Appellant was allotted the Government accommodation not only because of his status as former Legislator/Minister but also because of having faced recurring threat perception and his being falling under category of ‘protected person.’ It was argued by the counsel for the appellant that the existence of legal right of a citizen and the performance of corresponding legal right by the State or any public authority could be enforced by issuance of Writ of Mandamus as held by Supreme Court of India, therefore, the findings of the Writ Court runs in direct conflict with the law laid down by Supreme Court of India.