Mr. Aribinda Ghose & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 2164 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                                  Reserved on: 16.04.2009
%                                              Date of decision: 20.05.2009


+                             LPA Nos.1611-1619 of 2006


MR. B.K. MATHUR & ORS.                                ...APPELLANTS
                    Through:             Mr. V.P. Chaudhary, Sr. Advocate
                                         with Mr. G. Tushar Rao, Adv.


                                    Versus


UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                         ...RESPONDENTS
                              Through:   Mr. Gaurav Duggal, Adv. for R-1.


+                             LPA Nos.1738-1741 of 2006


MR. ARIBINDA GHOSE & ORS.                           ...APPELLANTS
                    Through:             Ms. Aradhna Mittal & Mr. Manu
                                         Nayar, Advocates


                                    Versus


UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                         ...RESPONDENTS
                              Through:   Mr. Gaurav Duggal, Adv. for R-1.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

1.        Whether the Reporters of local papers
          may be allowed to see the judgment?              Yes

2.        To be referred to Reporter or not?               Yes

3.        Whether the judgment should be
          reported in the Digest?                          Yes

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

1. The appeals raise the issue of the entitlement of accredited

journalists, newsmen & cameramen to occupy Press Pool

LPA Nos.1611-1619 of 2006 &

accommodation of the Government of India till they

continue to be so accredited.

2. It is the case of the appellants, who are journalists &

cameramen, that it is as far back as in the year 1953 that

the Union Cabinet took a decision to form a separate Press

Pool for Government accommodation in Delhi for accredited

journalists and Press cameramen. The appellants claim to

have been allotted Government accommodation in terms of

the guidelines formulated in the year 1953 and are being

charged rent. The Supreme Court came to analyze the

problems arising from irregularities in allotment of

Government accommodation in Shiv Sagar Tiwari Vs. Union

of India & Ors. AIR 1997 SC 2725. On this decision being

pronounced in December 1996, the Government of India

reviewed the guidelines for allotment of Government

accommodation including in respect of the appellants. In

this behalf recommendations were also sought from the

Press Council of India (for short 'PCI'). The appellants claim

that the Government found that such journalists and Press

cameramen were rendering useful and valuable service to

the society and could, thus, be treated as a class in

themselves entitling them to Government accommodation

at subsidized rates. The matter, however, got raked up,

once again, on the new guidelines coming into force w.e.f.

8.3.2001. An amendment was also made to even these

guidelines vide Office Memorandum dated 19.11.2001. In

view of new guidelines having come into force notices were

issued to the appellants dated 16.4.2001 on the ground

LPA Nos.1611-1619 of 2006 &

that they had become ineligible to retain Government

accommodation and were asked to vacate the same not

later than 15.10.2001.

3. The appellants claim that the earlier existing guidelines had

stood the test of time which did not require any

modification and in any case the new guidelines could not

have been applied to the appellants who were already in

occupation of the Government accommodation as per the

earlier guidelines. These guidelines are alleged to be also

arbitrary, illegal and contrary to principles of natural justice

& fair play resulting in miscarriage of justice. The

appellants have sought to link the issue of their occupation

of Government accommodation with freedom of press,

which is an essential prerequisite for healthy and vibrant

democracy. The Press Pool is stated to have been

constituted in the year 1953 with 110 houses of type-IV

being earmarked for it. The earlier guidelines provided for

the houses to be allotted to such newsmen/cameramen

who did not own any house in Delhi and the allotment was

based on the recommendation of the Press Information

Bureau (for short 'PIB') and the Press Association of India

(for short 'PAI'). The basis of allotment is stated to be

seniority of journalists in accordance with the accreditation

with PIB and the rent was charged under FR 45-A.

4. The appellants claim that accredited journalists, newsmen

and cameramen are those persons who have carried on

their profession for a minimum period of five (5) years and

only thereafter were they considered for accreditation by

LPA Nos.1611-1619 of 2006 &

the Central Press Accreditation Committee (for short

'CPAC'). Such accreditation is renewed on a yearly basis.

The imposition of emergency in the year 1975 saw the

Press Pool being scrapped but the decision to get the

houses vacated was by and large not implemented and in

1977 the decision to abolish the Press Pool was scrapped.

A further aspect pointed out by the appellants was that

once a Press Pool accommodation was made available, the

entitlement for retention of such Government

accommodation did not cease even if a person later on

acquires or builds a house. Some new guidelines are stated

to have come into existence in 1990-91 vide Office

Memorandums but they are stated not to have been made

applicable to the appellants.

5. In Shiv Sagar Tiwari case (supra), the Supreme Court also

sought suggestions from the PCI which suggested interim

guidelines as per its report dated 8.6.1996. One of the

suggestions incorporated in the interim report was that a

uniform period of five (5) years be given for vacating the

Government accommodation to all journalists if they did not

have any accommodation in Delhi of their own and were

liable to retain the Government accommodation in terms of

those guidelines. These suggestions were taken note of by

the Supreme Court but it was left to the Government to

formulate its policy.

6. We may note that there is one set of appeals filed by such

persons whose spouses or dependent children do not own

any residential accommodation either in Delhi or adjoining

LPA Nos.1611-1619 of 2006 &

areas but there is another set of appeals by persons who

incur such a disqualification albeit after the allotment.

7. The appellants have sought to emphasize that the case of

Ms. Amita Malik came before the Court but she was not

actually given a Press Pool accommodation but was given

an accommodation out of discretionary quota. The relevant

Ministry with regard to formulating of new guidelines was

not even consulted. Since notices were served on the

appellants proceedings were initiated against the

appellants under the provisions of the Public Premises

(Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.

8. The appellants filed writ proceedings before this Court

seeking to challenge the decision of the respondents. The

interim order passed permitted the proceedings to go on

before the Estate Officer though no final order was liable to

be passed. The appellants claim to have also placed before

the learned single Judge hearing the writ petition

documents showing the composition of Cabinet Committee

on Accommodation (for short 'CCA') to contend that the

Cabinet itself had not taken any decision to make the fresh

guidelines and the CCA had not been delegated with the

power to do so. The writ petitions were, however,

dismissed by the impugned order dated 2.6.2006 giving

rise to the present Letters Patent Appeals.

9. Learned senior counsel for the appellant has assailed the

impugned judgement by contending that though it could

not be disputed that the Cabinet had the right to delegate

powers to the CCA, yet submitted that what is in issue is

LPA Nos.1611-1619 of 2006 &

whether such delegation actually took place. The office

order of the Government of India dated 4.11.1999 has been

placed on record in terms whereof various Cabinet

Committees were constituted including the CCA. The

functions of the CCA have been specified as under:

"Functions

(i) To determine the guidelines/rules and terms and conditions to govern out-of-turn allotment of Government accommodation;

(ii) To decide upon allotment of Government accommodation to various categories of non-eligible persons and organization and rate of rent to be charged from them'

(iii) To consider the question of allotment of accommodation from the General Pool to the Members of Parliament;

(iv) To consider proposals regarding shifting of existing Central Government Offices to places outside Delhi and the location of new offices in Delhi; and

(v) to consider and decide upon proposals relating to:-

a) revision of scales of accommodation to various categories of persons;

b) revision of license fee for various types of Government Accommodation; and

c) other matters, like allotment of accommodation to the various categories of Central Government servants from the Central Pool or Special Pool."

10. Learned senior counsel for the appellants contended that

the Press Pool was not mentioned in the said list of

functions and thus any decision relating to the policy of

allotment under the Press Pool was not a function

delegated to the CCA.

LPA Nos.1611-1619 of 2006 &

11. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand,

referred to the Office Memorandum dated 24.10.1985

dealing with the subject of "Review of guidelines for

allotment of general pool accommodation - Accredited

Press Correspondents & Journalists" to emphasize that the

so-called Press Pool is nothing but a part of the General

Pool accommodation. The various clauses of the Office

Memorandum were referred to emphasize that the

eligibility provided for requirement not to own a house in

his/her name or in the name of family members or

dependents at the time of allotment and that the persons

concerned should be withdrawing a salary of up to

Rs.3,000.00 per month. The tenure of allotment was set

out in clause (g) which provided for a period of up to three

(3) years of such allotment and the position to be reviewed

thereafter.

12. Learned counsel pointed out that the review of guidelines

was done by another Office Memorandum of 11.7.1990

where, once again, the same clause (g) continued.

13. Learned counsel for the respondents drew our attention to

certain passages of Shiv Sagar Tiwari case (supra) more

specifically paras 61 to 66. The Supreme Court noted that

a need was felt by the Court requiring a fresh examination

of the issue whether journalists occupying Government

accommodation for a long period of time be permitted to

continue indefinitely or some period is to be fixed; whether

the existing eligibility and criteria/conditions need

modification; and if so, in what manner. The views of the

LPA Nos.1611-1619 of 2006 &

PCI have also been incorporated in the judgement. The

accommodation as per recommendations was to be only for

a limited period with the allottee not eligible for allotment

of accommodation in the pool more than once. These

suggestions of the PCI were to be kept in mind by the

Government while making allotment for the Press Pool.

14. Learned counsel, thus, submits that the subsequent Office

Memorandum dated 8.3.2001 is nothing but guidelines in

conformity with the directions contained in Shiv Sagar

Tiwari case (supra).

15. Learned counsel explained that the subsequent Office

Memorandum dated 19.11.2001 made no modification

except in respect of the financial eligibility.

16. Learned counsel also drew our attention to the discussion in

the impugned judgement dealing with the aspect of

authority of the Cabinet Sub-Committee.

17. The learned single Judge noted that the constitution of the

Standing Committees of the Cabinet and their functions is

by virtue of powers exercised by the Prime Minister under

Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 6 of the Government of India

(Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961. The learned single

Judge has thereafter examined the effect of the directions

of the Supreme Court in Shiv Sagar Tiwari case (supra) and

concluded that if the phrase "out-of-turn allotment" was to

be narrowly construed and applied to Government servants,

journalists would fall in category (ii) for allotment of

Government accommodation to various categories of non-

eligible persons and organizations. The increase and

LPA Nos.1611-1619 of 2006 &

decrease in the Press Pool accommodation has also taken

place as per decisions of the CCA.

18. We find from the various Office Memorandums referred to

that really speaking the Press Pool accommodation is

nothing but a part of the General Pool accommodation

dedicated for allotment to accredited

journalists/pressmen/cameramen. This is more than

apparent even from the earlier Office Memorandum dated

24.10.1985. In the designated functions of the CCA

specifically para (v) (c) "other matters, like allotment of

accommodation to the various categories of Central

Government servants from the Central Pool or Special Pool"

is provided for. In para (ii) "allotment of Government

accommodation to various categories of non-eligible

persons and organizations and rate of rent to be charged

from them" is also included. Further Clause (i) provides for

the "terms and conditions to govern out-of-turn allotment of

Government accommodation". It cannot be lost sight of

that Government accommodation is meant for Government

servants. In fact, we find no co-relation between the

independence of media and press with the provision of

accommodation. These are actually non-eligible persons to

whom Government accommodation is provided on account

of certain decisions of the Cabinet. Accredited journalists,

pressmen and cameramen are, thus, really non-eligible

persons entitled to allotment of Government

accommodation from a Special Press Pool forming part of

LPA Nos.1611-1619 of 2006 &

the General Pool accommodation in terms of decision of the

Government.

19. We are, thus, of the considered view that the plea of the

learned senior counsel for the appellants that the guidelines

laid down by the CCA being without empowerment by the

Cabinet is without merit.

20. Learned counsel for the appellants also urged that the

revocation of license under the new guidelines as per

notices issued, other than reference to new guidelines gives

no reason. This plea is only stated to be rejected for the

reason that the allotment itself was for a limited period of

time which was kept renewed and once the new guidelines

came into force fixing a maximum period of occupation with

non-entitlement of renewal all that was required to be

stated in the notice was the reference to the new

guidelines. It is really not in question that as per the new

guidelines the appellants would be ineligible.

21. Learned senior counsel for the appellants sought to make

out a case that the appellants had no opportunity to assist

the Supreme Court in Shiv Sagar Tiwari case (supra) and

suggestions from only PCI were invited. This had resulted

in an error in the suggestions being made by the PCI

inasmuch as it has been stated that such accommodation

was provided to journalists who are compulsorily

transferred from outstation to Delhi by their Newspaper to

expect them to get breathing time to find out

accommodation for themselves. In this behalf it is

submitted that when applications are invited for

LPA Nos.1611-1619 of 2006 &

accreditation it requires a minimum of five (5) years

professional experience in that capacity. Thus, it could

never be in the nature of a transient requirement.

However, we find that the learned senior counsel for the

appellants seems to ignore the other material fact that the

allotment itself is for a limited period of time. The

allotment is for five (5) years for category (I) and three (3)

years for category (II) from the date of allotment after

which the allottee would have to vacate the

accommodation. This is the condition stipulated while

inviting the application itself and is a material term of the

letter.

22. We, thus, find no merit in the contention of the learned

senior counsel for the appellants as the submission is

contrary to the Memorandum inviting applications

containing the material term, which reads as under:

"iv) The duration of allotment shall be five years for category (I) and three years for category (II) from the date of allotment, after which the allotee will have to vacate the accommodation."

We may also note that there could be no legitimate

expectation as the allotment was for a fixed period only.

23. Learned counsel also sought to contend that these

guidelines could only have prospective effect. Once again,

there is no dispute about the abstract proposition but the

prospective effect of the guidelines would only mean that

the norms contained therein making a person eligible

prospectively. The allotment to the appellants was never

made for an unlimited period of time but for a limited

period of time. The plea that they are entitled to continue LPA Nos.1611-1619 of 2006 &

occupation till they continue to be accredited has no force

in law as it is not supported by any allotment document or

office memorandums. In fact, the sum & substance of the

contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellants

is that since the accreditation is renewed on an yearly basis

the occupation of accommodation is directly linked to such

accreditation. Thus, till accreditation is withdrawn

accommodation cannot be withdrawn.

24. We, however, find no such linkage making the occupation

of accommodation co-terminus with accreditation either in

the office memorandums or in the allotment terms.

25. An important aspect is that the PCI itself considered the

matter of allotment to journalists. The PCI is the competent

body which made suggestions. Such suggestions have

been incorporated in Shiv Sagar Tiwari case (supra). Thus,

it is abundantly clear that even the parent body feels that

there should be certain restrictions on the period of

occupation and the Government was expected to make

guidelines in terms of such recommendations of the PCI in

view of the observations made in Shiv Sagar Tiwari case

(supra). The Government having done so, we find no

infirmity in the same.

26. Learned senior counsel for the appellants referred to the

observations of the Supreme Court in M/s. Kasturi Lal

Lakshmi Reddy Vs. The State of Jammu & Kashmir and Anr.

AIR 1980 SC 1992. In para 10 while referring to the

judgement of the Supreme Court in Ramana Dayaram

Shetty Vs. The International Airport Authority of India AIR

LPA Nos.1611-1619 of 2006 &

1979 SC 1628 it was observed that there was an increasing

expansion of the magnitude and range of governmental

functions and thus more wealth consists of the new forms

of property like contracts, licenses, quotas, etc. It was

observed that some of these forms of wealth may be in the

nature of privileges. The law had not recognized the

importance of this new kind of wealth and the need to

protect individual interest in it and with that end in view,

the Supreme Court through various pronouncements had

developed new forms of protection. Some interests in

Government largess, formerly regarded as privileges, have

been recognized as rights, while others have been given

legal protection not only by forging procedural safeguards

but also by confining, structuring and checking Government

discretion in the matter of grant of such largess. Learned

counsel, thus, contended that the occupation of the

appellants of Government accommodation is supported by

the aforesaid principles.

27. We are, once again, constrained to reject the plea of the

learned counsel for the appellants. No doubt

accommodation in a city like Delhi being scarce, fetters

were put on rights to make out-of-turn allotments by the

Government. This is the very basis of the pronouncement

of the Supreme Court in Shiv Sagar Tiwari case (supra).

Insofar as the journalists were concerned, once again, there

is a discussion in the said judgement after obtaining

recommendations of PCI. The guidelines of the

Government are sequitur to the same. Even otherwise it

LPA Nos.1611-1619 of 2006 &

cannot be said that only one set of journalists should have

the exclusive privilege to continue to occupy the

Government accommodation only because they continue to

be accredited journalists.

28. The charts given to us show that the occupants have been

in occupation of Government accommodation starting from

1956. In view of the modified policy most of the accredited

journalists and cameramen have vacated the

accommodation except the appellants. Other accredited

journalists are waiting in the queue to get this

accommodation which continues to be occupied by the

appellants. The proceedings by the Estate Officer have not

reached culmination because of interim orders. The

appellants have, in fact, occupied for an extra period of

almost seven (7) years in view of these legal proceedings.

29. We find no merit in the appeals which are dismissed with

costs quantified at Rs.5,500.00 for each of the appellants.

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

MAY 20, 2009                                         SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.
b'nesh




LPA Nos.1611-1619 of 2006 &