Raghav Chadha has no vested right to continue to occupy govt. bungalow after cancellation of allotment: Delhi court

AAP MP Raghav Chadha has no right to stay in govt. bungalow after its allotment was cancelled. Court vacated interim order given in April 2023. Rajya Sabha Secretariat had sought recall of order. Court said no urgent relief needed as allotment was cancelled in March. No hearing was required under law. Chadha moved court against March 3 letter cancelling allotment. He argued eviction without due process.

The Patiala House court on Thursday said Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MP Raghav Chadha has no vested right to continue to occupy the government bungalow after its allotment has been cancelled and the privilege given to him has been withdrawn.

Reacting to the court’s order, the AAP MP said the trial court had initially accepted his plea and granted interim relief. 

“It has now returned my case on a legal technicality, which I am legally advised to state is based on an incorrect understanding of the law. I will be taking appropriate action in law in due course. Needless to state that I will continue to raise the voice of people of Punjab and India fearlessly, irrespective of the costs involved,” he added. 

Additional district judge Sudhanshu Kaushik on October 5 vacated an interim order passed by the court in April 2023 in which the Rajya Sabha Secretariat has been asked to not dispossess the AAP MP from the government bungalow without due process of law. The Rajya Sabha Secretariat then approached the court seeking recall of the interim order.

“I find that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that any urgent or immediate relief needs to be granted in the present matter for which leave could be granted under Section 80(2) of CPC. Plaintiff’s allotment was cancelled on 03.03.2023, whereas, the suit was instituted on 17.04.2023. The accommodation granted to the plaintiff falls under the definition of a public premises,” the order reads.

The court added that the accommodation allotted to Mr. Chaddha was only a privilege given to him as a member of Parliament.

“He has no vested right to continue to occupy the same after the privilege has been withdrawn and the allotment has been cancelled. The argument that the plaintiff was not given hearing before the cancellation of allotment stands rejected as no such notice was required under the law,” the court added.