Delhi High Court: In a petition by the Aam Aadmi Party (‘AAP’) for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the Union to allot a housing unit temporarily to the petitioner from the General Pool Residential Accommodation (‘GPRA’) for office use upon payment of license fee as provided to National Parties till an office is constructed by AAP on the land which would be allotted for permanent use, as per the consolidated instructions, to National and State level political parties, a Single Judge Bench of Subramonium Prasad, J. directed the respondents to consider the request of AAP within six weeks and to take a decision by passing a detailed order as to why even one housing unit from the GPRA could not be allotted to them when other political parties have been allotted the same.
Background
The President of India sanctioned the allotment of plots no. 23 and 24, DDU Marg, New Delhi to the Government of NCT of Delhi (‘GNCTD’) for setting up family courts, the possession of which was taken up by GNCTD from the Land and Development Office (‘LDO’) on 03-08-2006.
AAP was registered as a political party under Section 29-A of the Representation of People Act, 1952 on 22-03-2013. On being recognized as a State Party, a request was made by AAP for the allotment of land for the construction of its permanent office. The LDO offered plots in Saket, which AAP rejected since they only wanted the land to be allotted in central Delhi.
An office memorandum was issued by the LDO regarding policy guidelines for allotment of land to political parties wherein National and State political parties having at least 7 Members of Parliament were to be considered for allotment of land for construction of office building. Consequently, GNCTD allotted bungalow No. 206, Rouse Avenue, to AAP for using the same as its temporary office in its capacity as a State party.
This allotment was cancelled by the Lt. Governor vide order dated 12-04-2017. Being aggrieved, AAP approached this Court which, in its order, set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Lt. Governor for reconsideration.
Subsequently, LDO cancelled the allotment of the plots on DDU Marg to GNCTD and instead, allotted a plot admeasuring 3.036 acres adjacent to Rouse Avenue for setting up of family courts.
The Directorate of Estates (‘DoE’) issued the consolidated instructions for the allotment of government accommodation from the general pool to National and State level political parties wherein any party recognized by the Election Commission of India (‘ECI’) as a National party was allowed to retain allotment of one housing unit from the GPRA for their office use for three years during which the party would have to secure land in an institutional area for construction of its permanent office.
AAP was recognized as a National party by the ECI vide order dated 10-04-2023. Subsequently, they requested the DoE for the allotment of a housing unit from the GPRA until a parcel of land was allotted to it for which AAP requested the LDO vide letter dated 20-04-2023.
The Supreme Court, through its order in another matter, directed AAP to vacate bungalow no. 206, Rouse Avenue so that the land that had been allotted to the district judiciary could be duly utilized on an expeditious basis. AAP was also directed to move the LDO for allotment of an alternate land and the LDO was directed to communicate its decision within 4 weeks.
The LDO informed AAP that since the plots on DDU Marg were not in its possession, they could not be allotted and offered them plots no. P2 and P3, M.B. Road, Sector-VI, Saket to construct its permanent office vide letter dated 24-04-2024. This offer was not accepted by AAP and a petition was filed by them against the LDO.
Since AAP had to vacate the bungalow in Rouse Avenue, they filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the Union of India for allotment of a suitable accommodation to establish its office temporarily.
Analysis and Decision
The Court stated that it agreed with the submission of the Union of India that the plots on DDU Marg were given to the GNCTD and not to AAP which is why they did not have a right to claim the said plots.
The Court noted that as directed by the LDO through its letter dated 18-09-2020, the possession of the plots on DDU Marg had to be handed over by the GNCTD to the LDO and the Court also noted that the GNCTD was ready to do so.
Thus, the Court stated that given this, it was not prepared to accept the prayer of AAP to issue a writ of mandamus to the LDO to permit AAP to establish its office at the plots in DDU Marg, a portion of which was possessed by a minister of the party.
However, the Court stated that the fact that AAP was a National political party could not be overlooked and perused Clause 26 of the consolidated guidelines dated 31-07-2014 issued by the DoE which indicated that the National political parties had a right to retain allotment of one housing unit from the general pool in Delhi for their office use on payment of license fee.
Further, the Court said that the fact that AAP had not accepted the allotment of the plots in Saket as a State party in 2014 and that it had not responded to the offer of the LDO regarding plots no. P2 and P3 in Saket as a National party in 2024 was of no consequence and this could not be taken as an argument to deny AAP a temporary accommodation.
The Court found no material on record to show that the requests by AAP vide letter dated 17-04-2023 and 22-08-2023 to the DoE had been rejected. The Court further stated that it could take judicial notice of the fact that there had always been pressure on the pool of houses available for allotment to the officers, but it had not deterred allotment of houses to other political parties.
Further, the Court stated that the fact that there was huge pressure could not be the only reason for the respondents to deny AAP its right to be allotted accommodation from the GRPA for setting up its party office.
Thus, the Court directed the respondents to consider the request by AAP within six weeks and to take a decision by passing a detailed order as to why even one housing unit could not be allotted to AAP when all other political parties had been allotted similar accommodation from the GRPA.
While disposing of the petition, the Court also directed for the order to be provided to AAP so that it can take other remedial steps available under the law if its request is not considered adequately.
[Aam Aadmi Party v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4292, Decided on 05-06-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner — Sr. Advocate Rahul Mehra, Advocate Talha Abdul Rahman, Advocate Mani Gupta, Advocate Sreekar, Advocate Adnan, Advocate Rishikesh Kumar, Advocate Prateek Chadha, Advocate Sonali Jain
For Respondents — CGSC Kirtiman Singh, Advocate Waize Ali Noor, Advocate Varun Rajawat, Advocate Varun P. Singh, Advocate Aryan Agarwal, Advocate Kartik Baijal, Advocate Shreya V. Mehra, Advocate Vidhi Jain
