DB dismisses appeal of Ch Lal Singh with cost of Rs 25000 regarding eviction of Bunglow

Excelsior Correspondent

JAMMU, Dec 26: A Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court comprising Acting Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice Rajesh Sekri has dismissed the appeal with cost of Rs 25000 filed by Choudhary Lal Singh, Former Minister.
The present application has been preferred by former Minister, Member of the Parliament and Member of Legislative Assembly of the erstwhile State of J&K, Ch Lal Singh seeking an injunction against the respondents from evicting him from Government Bungalow No. 2-PWD, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu till Government re-assesses and decides the issue of his security as ordered by this court on the basis of stand taken by the respondents in the Public Interest Litigation.
The case set up by the applicant was that on account of various militants attacks on his life and constant threat perceptions, he was enlisted in the category of Z-Security of CRPF by the Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. It is allegation of the applicant that persons, who are under threat perception, are occupying Government accommodations, but a departure has been made in his case and Government has taken a different view, due to political rivalry and because of the reason that he is a political opponent of the present dispensation at the Centre and in the Union Territory.
Referring to various orders dated 08.07.2022, 07.10.2022, 01.12.2020. 05.12.2020, 22.12.2020 and 23.11.2021 passed by court from time to time, the applicant asserted that these orders would suggest that till threat perception is re-assessed by the Government, the persons occupying the Government accommodation will not be disturbed.
After hearing Senior Advocate KS Johal with Advocate Supreet Johal for Lal Singh whereas AAG Amit Gupta for the UT, DB observed, “the case set up by the applicant is that since the accommodation in question was co-terminus with his security arrangements, which are required to be made for a Z-category protectee, therefore, in the absence of re-assessment of his security or downgrading of threat perception to his life, respondents be restrained from evicting him from the Government accommodation in question”.
“There is no doubt that the applicant, being a former Minister, Member of the Parliament and Member of the Legislative Assembly is entitled to proper security cover, which is required to be reviewed/re-assessed from time to time, however, there is nothing on the record to suggest that there is any policy or guideline which obligates the Central Government or the Government of UT for that matter of providing official accommodation to Z-Category protectee”, the DB said.
After carefully going through all the communications referred by Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant, the DB said, “there is nothing to suggest that persons occupying the Government accommodations can be evicted only after the review/re-assessment of their threat perceptions”.
DB further observed, “it is own case of the applicant that proceedings under Public Premises Act were initiated against him, he assailed the proceedings and preferred a writ petition in this court. The applicant himself withdrew the writ petition and the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. However, the applicant was given six weeks time to vacate the Government Bunglow in question. Since the period of six weeks would expire on 27.12.2022, the applicant has come up with the present application with the sole intention to prolong his unauthorized occupation of the Government Bungalow”.
“This amounts to an abuse of the process of law. The security assessment and entitlement to Government accommodation are two different issues and cannot be intermingled to defeat the process of law. The present application filed by the applicant is nothing but an abuse of the process of law”, the DB said while dismissing the present application along with connected CM No. 7468/2022, being devoid of merit with costs quantified at Rs 25,000 to be deposited in the Advocates’ Welfare Fund within a period of two weeks failing which the Registry shall maintain the index.