The Punjab and Haryana High Court has allowed the Beant Singh family to continue in a Chandigarh government house, rejecting an application that sought enforcement of the earlier cancellation of the allotment and accepting the Chandigarh Administration’s security assessment.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has rejected an application seeking to implead the son of former Punjab Chief Minister Beant Singh and enforce the earlier cancellation of the allotment of a Chandigarh government house occupied by the family, holding that the Supreme Court’s general directions on post-retirement occupation of official accommodation could not be relied upon in the circumstances, given the Union Territory Administration’s decision based on threat perception and intelligence inputs [Court on its own motion v. UT Chandigarh through Advisor to the Administrator].
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor rejected the application, filed by Kulwant Singh in the pending public interest litigation, by an order of October 6, 2026.
The application
The applicant, a proposed intervener, sought to implead Tej Parkash Singh, son of the late Beant Singh, as a respondent. It was contended that the house, allotted to the former Chief Minister, continues to be occupied by his family in breach of the Supreme Court’s order of May 7, 2018 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 864 of 2016, and that the earlier decision of the Administration cancelling the allotment ought to be enforced.
The Administration’s position
The UT Administration filed an affidavit dated October 6, 2026. It stated that Beant Singh was killed in a terrorist attack and that his family continues to face security threats. The affidavit relied on a letter of June 1, 2026 of the House Allotment Committee, which noted that the protectees continue to remain vulnerable targets of various groups and found the house strategically suitable and security-wise appropriate for them, while recommending additional CCTV and surveillance. The Administration said it had first cancelled the allotment, but reconsidered after a representation from the occupant and intelligence inputs.
What the Court said
The Bench observed that the Supreme Court’s directions were aimed at preventing government servants from continuing to occupy official accommodation after retirement. The Court held:
“Such general directions cannot, however, be relied upon by the applicant.”
The Court noted that the Administration had taken a conscious decision, on the basis of threat perception and intelligence inputs, that continued occupation was warranted, and that it had reconsidered its earlier decision after the occupant’s representation. It concluded that there was no merit in the application seeking enforcement of that earlier decision, describing the case as:
“a case of its own kind, and clearly distinguishable.”
The directions
The application was rejected. In the connected public interest litigation, the Court directed the Chief Engineer, UT Administration, to file a personal affidavit explaining why required repairs have not been carried out in government houses allotted to High Court employees. It further directed that the necessary repairs be carried out on a priority basis and that the Court be informed forthwith. The matter has been adjourned to November 26, 2026.
Why the order matters
The order shows how the Court treated the Supreme Court’s general directions against post-retirement occupation of official accommodation: as directed at government servants, and not as a bar on a decision a public authority has taken, on a documented security assessment, in a case it found distinguishable. The Court’s conclusion rests on the material placed by the Administration, and the applicant’s contentions were not accepted.
The order also keeps the public interest litigation alive on a separate issue, the upkeep of government houses allotted to High Court employees, on which the Chief Engineer must now explain the delay in repairs.
Case Title: Court on its own motion v. UT Chandigarh through Advisor to the Administrator [CM-75-CWPIL-2026 in CWP-PIL-228-2024 (O&M)]
Bench: Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor, Punjab and Haryana High Court
Date of Order: October 6, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate R.S. Bains with Advocate Utsav Singh Bains (applicant); Additional Standing Counsel Abhinav Sood with Advocate Sayyam Garg (UT Chandigarh); Additional Advocate General Samdisha Kaur (Punjab); Advocate Mayank Aggarwal (respondent No. 4)