Delhi Court Orders Aap Mp Raghav Chadha to Leave Type 7 Government Bungalow
The type 7 home owned by AAP MP Raghav Chadha in Delhi has been ordered to be vacated by the court. As a member of the Rajya Sabha, Chadha’s counsel contended, he should be given a type 6 bungalow rather than a type 7 bungalow.
AAP Rajya Sabha MP Raghav Chadha will have to vacate his Government Bunglow.
Delhi Court vacates an earlier Stay on Rajya Sabha Secretariat order that said a First time MP is not entitled for top, Class VII bunglow.
He has been alloted a flat instead pic.twitter.com/FiVa61wmRS
— Megh Updates 🚨™ (@MeghUpdates) October 6, 2023
Setback for Raghav Chadha: Delhi Court vacates interim order, AAP MP may lose govt bungalow
— ANI Digital (@ani_digital) October 6, 2023
Lacking Common Law Right to Retain Bungalow
The court ruled that Raghav Chadha had no legal claim to the government home after its allotment was revoked and the privilege was taken away.
Patiala House Courts Additional District Judge Sudhanshu Kaushik has reversed an earlier temporary restraining order on April 18. Previously, the Rajya Sabha Secretariat had been advised by this order to refrain from forcibly removing Chadha from the official home.
Raghav Chadha, the plaintiff, has no right to claim that he is entitled to live in the apartment for the duration of his full time in the Rajya Sabha. “The allocation of government housing was merely a privilege granted to the plaintiff, and he does not have any inherent right to maintain occupancy even after the allocation was revoked,” the court said.
The RS secretariat submitted a petition for review
This ruling is the result of a review petition submitted by the Rajya Sabha Secretariat, which requested the rescinding of the temporary restraining order. The Secretariat argued that the court erred in providing Chadha interim relief without holding a hearing for both parties as required by Section 80(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
While Chadha argued that an MP’s allotment of government housing could not be removed under any circumstances for the duration of their term in office, the court rejected this argument and vacated the interim order.