The Delhi High Court on Tuesday granted time till July 25 to the Centre to decide Aam Aadmi Party’s (AAP) request for allotment of a housing unit on a temporary basis from the general pool for its party office in the national capital.
On March 4, the Supreme Court asked the AAP to vacate its office in Rouse Avenue by June 15 as the land in question had been allotted for the expansion of judicial infrastructure.
On June 5, the High Court had directed the Centre to decide the party’s request for temporary accommodation within six weeks.
Centre seeks time
On Tuesday, the Directorate of Estates, Union Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, moved an application before the High Court seeking extension of time by four weeks to comply with the directions passed by the court in its June 5 order.
After hearing the submissions made by the party and the Centre, a single judge bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula said, “Having considered the submissions, since substantial time has already been granted to the applicant (Directorate of Estates) to comply with the court’s directions, the request for extension of time of four weeks cannot be accepted. However, considering the overall facts and circumstances the time period is extended till July 25.”
The High Court further said that it “expects that no further applications shall be present by the applicant (Centre) for seeking further extension”.
‘A mammoth task’
Appearing for the Directorate of Estates, central government standing counsel Kirtiman Singh said that it was occupied with the process of allocating accommodation from the general pool to various members of Parliament which was a “mammoth task and therefore delay had occurred in complying with the court’s directions”.
Opposing the request, senior advocate Rahul Mehra appearing for the AAP, said that the time period to comply with the High Court’s directions expires tomorrow i.e. on July 17, Wednesday. He said that the Directorate of Estates could have approached the court earlier.
He also said that on June 10, the Supreme Court had granted the party time till August 10 as the last opportunity to vacate its present office in Rouse Avenue.
He further said that during the hearing on June 10 before the Supreme Court, the Centre made “no such submission” that extension of time would be needed for deciding AAP’s request.
Mehra said that he apprehends that the application for extension of time is only to render the petitioner party without any remedy.
Fact that AAP is a national political party can’t be overlooked’
The High Court’s June 5 direction came while disposing of AAP’s plea for allotment of a housing unit on temporary basis from the General Pool Residential Accommodation (GPRA) for office use “on payment of license fee as provided to National Parties” till an office is constructed by the party after land is allotted to it for “permanent use”.
A coordinate single judge bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad in its order had taken note of the ‘Consolidated guidelines for allotment of GPRA to Political parties’ as per which National Political Parties have a “right to retain/secure allotment of one housing unit from General Pool in Delhi for their office use on payment of licence fee”. The High Court had then said that the fact that the AAP is a national political party cannot be overlooked.
“There is no material on record to show that the said request of the Petitioner (AAP) has been rejected. This Court can take judicial notice of the fact that there has always been pressure on the Pool of house available for allotment to the officers but that pressure has not deterred allotment of houses to other political parties for office purposes in accordance with the Consolidated Instructions for allotment of Government Accommodation from General Pool to National and State level Political Parties. The fact that there is a huge pressure cannot be the only reason for the Respondents to deny the Petitioner its right to be allotted accommodation from the GPRA for setting up its party office,” the June 5 order said.
The High Court had thereafter directed the Centre to consider the party’s request and take a decision within six weeks by passing a “detailed order as to why even one housing unit from the GPRA cannot be allotted to the Petitioner when all other political parties have been allotted similar accommodation”.
The High Court had also directed that the order deciding the AAP’s request be provided to the party so that it can take “other remedial steps” available to it under law in case the request is “not considered adequately”.
‘AAP is not the GNCTD’
Justice Prasad had, however, agreed with the Centre’s contention that the AAP is “not the GNCTD and Plots No.23 & 24, DDU Marg, were given to the GNCTD” and not to the party and, hence the AAP “does not have right to claim” these two plots.
The High Court had noted that the Land and Development Office in September 2020 directed that the possession of Plot No 23 and 24 on DDU Marg is to be handed over by the Delhi government to the Land and Development Office.
“Material on record also discloses that the GNCTD is ready to hand over the two plots back to the L&DO. In view of the above, this Court is not prepared to accept the prayer of the Petitioner (AAP) to issue a Writ of Mandamus to the L&DO to permit the Petitioner to establish its office at Plots No.23 & 24, DDU Marg, a portion of which is currently in possession of a Minister of the Petitioner,” the High Court had then said.
