“No one can hold on to a government bungalow indefinitely,” the Supreme Court observed on Tuesday while dismissing a petition filed by a former Bihar legislator challenging the imposition of penal rent for unauthorised occupation of official accommodation.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran, and Justice N V Anjaria was hearing the plea of former MLA Avinash Kumar Singh, who was directed to pay ₹21 lakh for continuing to reside in a government bungalow for two years after demitting office.
Former MLA Avinash Singh, a five-time legislator from Dhaka constituency, had resigned in March 2014 to contest the Lok Sabha elections and subsequently lost. He continued to occupy the MLA-allocated residence until May 2016, claiming entitlement under a 2009 state notification which extended certain perks, including housing, to members nominated to the ‘State Legislature Research and Training Bureau’.
Rejecting this contention, the Apex court underlined the distinction between general entitlements and the right to retain a specific residential allotment. “Once you resigned as a legislator, you should have vacated the government bungalow within the stipulated time,” the Bench observed.
Singh’s counsel, Senior Advocate Anil Mishra, described the rent demand as “exorbitant” and urged the Court to reconsider the penal amount levied. However, with the Bench unwilling to interfere, the petitioner sought liberty to explore alternative legal remedies and withdrew the plea.
The Patna High Court had earlier dismissed Singh’s challenge to the rent demand, holding that the 2009 notification did not confer any right to retain a bungalow earmarked for sitting legislators. The High Court had further directed him to pay interest at 6% per annum on the outstanding dues.
In reaffirming the legal position, the Supreme Court’s order aligns with its earlier pronouncements in Lok Prahari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and S. D. Bandi v. Divisional Traffic Officer, where it had ruled that former public functionaries cannot continue in occupation of official residences post-tenure. In those cases, the Court had called for stringent action against unauthorised occupants and reminded governments of their obligation to enforce eviction laws without fear or favour.
While not elaborating further on the broader legal principle, the Court’s terse refusal to entertain Singh’s plea reflects judicial disapproval of lingering occupancy practices by former officials.
Picture Source :
