A Delhi court has vacated its interim order passed on April 18, which directed the Rajya Sabha Secretariat not to dislodge Rajya Sabha MP Raghav Chadha from government bungalow without following the due process of law.
The order was passed by Additional District Judge Sudhanshu Kaushik of Patiala House Courts on Friday.
The ASJ observed that the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader could not claim an absolute right to occupy the government bungalow after the cancellation of its allotment and withdrawal of the privilege given to him.
It further rejected Chadha’s argument that the accommodation once made to the Members of Parliament could not be cancelled under any circumstance during their entire tenure, noting that the allotment of Government accommodation was only a privilege given to the Rajya Sabha MP.
The orders were passed on a review application filed by the Rajya Sabha Secretariat seeking recall of the court’s April 18 interim order. Chadha had filed a suit against the Secretariat challenging a letter issued on March 3, by which the Secretariat had cancelled the accommodation allotted to the AAP MP.
Seeking recall of the interim order, the Secretariat contended that the court granted interim relief to the AAP leader without following the procedure contemplated under Section 80(2) of CPC.
The judge recorded in its order that while it was an inescapable conclusion that for the purpose of determining whether an application should be granted under Section 80(2) of CPC, the Court was supposed to give hearing to both the sides and consider the nature of the suit and urgency of the matter before taking a final decision and till a final order was passed granting the said application, the irregularity in filing of the suit continued.
The court noted that the notice of application under Section 80(2) of CPC was issued to the Secretariat and simultaneously interim relief was granted to Chadha that he would not be dispossessed from the accommodation without following the due process of law.
Chadha failed to demonstrate that any urgent or immediate relief needs to be granted for which leave could be granted under Section 80(2) of CPC, it said, adding that this was certainly an error apparent on the face of record and the same needs to be corrected.
Since no urgent or immediate relief needed to be granted in the present suit, the complaint has been returned for presentation after complying with the requirement of Section 80(1) of CPC, it added.
The plaintiff was represented by Advocate Prashant Manchanda, while CGSC Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra (Standing Counsel, Rajya Sabha), along with with Advocates Sugam Kumar Jha, Osheen Verma, Kritika Sharma, Harsh Raj and Raghav Tandon appeared for the defendant.