Patna High Court held that Tejashwi Yadav lacked any legal ground to keep his earlier Deputy Chief Minister residence, stressing that government houses follow executive discretion and cannot be treated as fixed privileges once political situations shift significantly.
The Patna High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Leader of Opposition in Bihar Legislative Assembly Tejashwi Prasad Yadav and held that he had no legal right to insist on retaining the same government bungalow that was allotted to him when he was serving as the Deputy Chief Minister.
The Court observed that the entire dispute was more of propriety than legality and added that the case appeared to be a crisis of identity where two political leaders were fighting only for the convenience of occupying a particular residence instead of raising any issue of real public importance.
The division bench of then Chief Justice A.P. Sahi and Justice Anjana Mishra examined the matter and asked the Building Construction Department to provide details on the facilities being given to former Chief Ministers.
The Bench headed by the Chief Justice pointed out that the contest looked like a struggle for a sanctuary with Government facilities, even though both sides knew that such premises could never be permanently occupied.
The Court noted that after the 2015 Assembly elections, Tejashwi Yadav became Deputy Chief Minister and was allotted Bungalow No.5, Deshratna Marg, Patna. When the coalition government collapsed in July 2017, he ceased to be a Minister and later became the Leader of Opposition.
At the same time, Sushil Kumar Modi, who was earlier occupying Bungalow No.1, Polo Road as Leader of Opposition, became Deputy Chief Minister in the new government. With this change, the government swapped the bungalows, earmarking Bungalow No.5 for the Deputy Chief Minister.
The Court explained that various laws govern the allotment of government residences, including the Bihar Ministers’ (Salary and Allowances) Act, 2006, the Bihar Legislative Assembly (Salary, Allowances and Pension of Members) Act, 2006, and the Bihar Government Premises (Rent, Recovery and Eviction) Act, 1956.
These laws make it clear that Ministers and Leaders of Opposition are entitled to a government residence, but they do not give anyone the right to demand a specific bungalow.
The power to allot and re-allot such premises is vested in the State Government, and Section 2A of the 1956 Act specifically authorises the government to allocate and transfer government quarters.
The Court recorded that Tejashwi argued that he continued to enjoy the status of a Minister because the Leader of Opposition is legally equated with a Minister for the purpose of entitlement. He claimed that there was no justification for swapping the bungalows and alleged that the government acted with mala fides and political motive.
He criticised the State’s reasoning that the Deputy Chief Minister needed to stay close to the Chief Minister’s residence for administrative convenience. He also challenged the earmarking of Bungalow No.5 for the Deputy Chief Minister, arguing that expressions such as “Deputy Chief Minister” or “senior-most Minister” do not appear in Article 164 of the Constitution.
However, the State Government submitted that there was no reduction in entitlement at all because Tejashwi had been allotted Bungalow No.1, Polo Road, which is of the same category as the one he was previously occupying.
The State also informed the Court that the practice of earmarking bungalows existed earlier as well, including during the previous government in which Tejashwi himself was a Minister.
The Court agreed that the State could change or modify allotments after political transitions and that the appellant had no “indefeasible right” to occupy any particular residence.
Also Read: Bihar: ED Files Charges Against Rabri Devi and Two Daughters in Railway Recruitment Case
The Judges held that they found no evidence of malice, arbitrariness or capricious exercise of power. They agreed with the reasoning of the Single Judge who had earlier dismissed the writ petition.
The Bench stated that the government had valid authority to re-allocate residences after the change of power, and since the appellant received a bungalow of the same category, there was no violation of any legal right and no ground to invoke the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226.
The Court remarked that the entire conflict showed how political leaders sometimes treated government residences like personal assets.
In a significant philosophical observation, the Bench recalled the ideals of Mahatma Gandhi and said that he lived with the sky as his roof and the earth as his shelter, while serving all humanity as his family. The Court stated that this dispute over government bungalows should not have turned into a battle “as if it was a division of private property”.
It added that residences are provided only for enabling public servants to perform their duties, and they cannot be claimed as personal privileges beyond the limits set by law.
After examining the rules, the statutory scheme and the factual background, the Court concluded that there was no constitutional or legal fault in the decision to allot Bungalow No.1 to Tejashwi Yadav and earmark Bungalow No.5 for the Deputy Chief Minister.
It held that the appellant had been given a residence of the same category and therefore could not demand to stay in the old one.
The Letters Patent Appeal was accordingly dismissed, with the Court declaring that “the rights which are being agitated upon are not such rights so as to place them at par on the pedestal of legally enforceable indefeasible rights.”
Case Title: Tejashwi Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar (LPA No.1543/2018)
Read Attachment
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
