Delhi High Court rejects plea by Mahua Moitra for interim stay on her eviction from government bungalow

The Delhi High Court on Thursday declined an application by Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader and former Member of Parliament (MP) Mahua Moitra seeking interim stay on her eviction from government allotted bungalow in New Delhi after she was expelled from the parliament..In an order passed late in the evening, Justice Girish Kathpalia held that Moitra was allotted the accommodation because of her position as an MP and that status ceased once she was expelled from parliament."The allotment of government accommodation to the petitioner was co-terminus with her status (as MP), which has come to an end upon her expulsion. No specific rule has been brought before this court which would deal with the eviction of Members of Parliament from the government accommodation after they cease to be the members," the Court observed.Since her expulsion from parliament has not been stayed by the Supreme Court, the High Court cannot grant her relief against eviction from official bungalow under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court said. "To conclude, in view of the pendency of the issue of expulsion of petitioner before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the issue of extension of time to vacate the government accommodation being inextricably linked with that, coupled with the fact that as on date petitioner has no right, this court is not inclined to invoke jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this stage to restrain the operation of the impugned eviction order. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed," the single-judge ordered.The plea by Moitra challenging the eviction itself will be heard on January 24. .The eviction notice to Moitra was issued on January 16 and she was asked to vacate the accommodation immediately. The notice warned of "use of force" if Moitra does not vacate the bungalow..Moitra was expelled from the Lok Sabha on December 8 after the Ethics Panel found her guilty of sharing her parliamentary login credentials with businessman Darshan Hiranandani. The Central government's Estates Department had earlier asked her to vacate the accommodation by January 7.Moitra challenged the order before the High Court. However, she later withdrew the plea saying she will approach the Estates Officer to allow her to stay in the accommodation till the Lok Sabha elections.However, earlier this week, the government issued her a fresh eviction notice after her representation to the Directorate of Estate was rejected..Appearing for the Central government, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma informed the Court that Moitra had challenged her expulsion from Lok Sabha before the Supreme Court..The Court suggested that if Moitra's expulsion from the Lok Sabha is the subject of an ongoing case before the Supreme Court, the matter concerning her eviction should be addressed there. .However, Moitra's counsel clarified that the only issue before the Supreme Court was her expulsion from Lok Sabha and not the eviction from government bungalow. Although Moitra had challenged the eviction earlier before the High Court, she withdrew the plea with liberty to approach the Directorate of Estates, he added. Moitra's counsel explained that a representation to the Directorate was made on January 5 and on a show cause notice was issued to her on January 8 asking her to appear on January 11. Due to health reasons, Moitra requested more time, and the appearance was deferred to January 16.While the representation was pending, Moitra's lawyers appeared before the Estates officer and filed their reply. The Directorate deferred the proceedings saying that they will continue once the representation was decided.However, on the same day, the representation was rejected and the eviction order was passed. Moitra alleged that this was done without hearing and that she was not given a copy of the rejection order.The counsel emphasized that Moitra is entitled to stay for six months under specific rules by paying higher charges. Accordingly, citing health conditions, he sought four months' time to vacate the bungalow..The Court, however, questioned the need for a four-month period for Moitra to vacate the accommodation and suggested a shorter time frame..ASG Chetan Sharma contended that in Moitra's representation to the Directorate of Estates, there was not a whisper about her medical condition. He underlined that the bungalow was allotted to Moitra as an MP and that she was no longer an MP. He also highlighted that despite vehement prayer, the Supreme Court had refused to grant Moitra interim relief by suspending her expulsion..In rejoinder submissions by Moitra, advocate Shadan Farasat referred to Section 3(b) of the The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act to assert that she had a right to stay in the accommodation. He claimed that Moitra had been advised bed rest..The Court, however pointed out that Moitra's medical condition was not mentioned in her representation to the Estates officer. Farasat said that the representation was made before the diagnosis and surgery."It was a serious surgery, I (Mahua Moitra) was in ICU for hours," he said..The Court determined that on humanitarian grounds, Moitra could be granted three or four days but she could not cite humanitarian grounds and assert a right to live in the bungalow for longer.