The Delhi High Court, in today hearing, dismissed a plea by Mahua Moitra, seeking to stay her eviction from a government-allocated bungalow. Justice Girish Kathpalia, presiding over the case, noted that Moitra’s allotment of the government accommodation was linked to her status as a Member of Parliament (MP), a position she lost following her expulsion from parliament.
Justice Kathpalia observed,
“The allotment of government accommodation to the petitioner was co-terminus with her status (as MP), which has come to an end upon her expulsion. No specific rule has been brought before this court which would deal with the eviction of Members of Parliament from the government accommodation after they cease to be the members.”
The court further clarified that since Moitra’s expulsion from parliament has not been stayed by the Supreme Court, it cannot grant her relief against eviction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The judge stated,
“To conclude, in view of the pendency of the issue of expulsion of petitioner before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the issue of extension of time to vacate the government accommodation being inextricably linked with that, coupled with the fact that as on date petitioner has no right, this court is not inclined to invoke jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this stage to restrain the operation of the impugned eviction order. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.”
The plea by Moitra challenging the eviction will be heard on January 24. However, her counsel clarified that the Supreme Court is only addressing her expulsion from the Lok Sabha and not the eviction from the government bungalow.
Previously, Moitra had challenged the eviction in the High Court but withdrew the plea to approach the Directorate of Estates. A representation to the Directorate was made on January 5, followed by a show cause notice issued to her on January 8. Moitra requested additional time due to health reasons, and her appearance was deferred to January 16.
While her representation was pending, Moitra’s lawyers responded to the Estates officer. The Directorate deferred the proceedings, stating they would continue once the representation was decided. However, on the same day, the representation was rejected, and an eviction order was issued without a hearing, as alleged by Moitra, who also claimed she was not given a copy of the rejection order.
Moitra’s counsel emphasized that she is entitled to stay for six months under specific rules by paying higher charges and sought four months’ time to vacate the bungalow, citing health conditions. This development in Moitra’s case highlights the legal complexities surrounding the allotment and eviction of government accommodations for parliament members.
[ Read Order ]