Patna High Court Rejects Tejashwi Yadav's Petition Challenging Bihar Govt Order to Vacate Bungalow
It lamented that both Yadav and Modi appear to be contesting their competitive claims as if a "vested right exists to occupy a particular premises".
Patna, January 7: RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav received a setback on Monday, when the Patna High Court dismissed his petition challenging the Bihar government's order asking him to vacate the bungalow allotted to him while he was the deputy chief minister. A division bench of Chief Justice A P Sahi and Justice Anjana Mishra rejected the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) leader's appeal challenging a single-judge order dated October 6, 2018, which had turned down his petition against the state government's direction.
The single-judge order had said "the petitioner has been allotted a bungalow, matching his status as a minister in the government, at 1, Polo Road, Patna. He cannot raise complaint on the decision so taken, simply because the present bungalow is more suited to him". Yadav, who is now the Leader of the Opposition in the Bihar Assembly, occupies the 5, Desh Ratna Marg bungalow, which is at a stone's throw from the Raj Bhavan and the chief minister's official residence. BJP Slams Tejashwi Yadav for Use of Foul Language Against Nitish Kumar on Twitter.
The Nitish Kumar government has asked Yadav to swap residences with Deputy Chief Minister Sushil Kumar Modi, who lives in 1, Polo Road, situated about a kilometre away. The high court rejected Yadav's appeal, observing "it is correct that the appellant after becoming leader of opposition is entitled for a bungalow, which can be allotted to a government minister. The question is, can he insist upon occupying the same bungalow that was allotted to him... when he was in the government". Tejashwi Yadav Dares Narendra Modi to Form JPC on Rafale.
It lamented that both Yadav and Modi appear to be contesting their competitive claims as if a "vested right exists to occupy a particular premises". "We find that this squabble over the allotment of a bungalow should not have been made a cause of dispute, as if it was a division of some private property. The rights which are being agitated upon are not such rights so as to place them on the pedestal of legally enforceable, indefeasible rights," the court remarked. Reacting to Monday's court order, Yadav said, "This is not the end. I will move the Supreme Court."