Dynamite News Delhi HC grants time to Centre to decide request of AAP for land allotment
The Delhi High Court has granted 10 days' time to Centre to decide the request of the Aam Aadmi Party for temporary allotment of land for office space. Read further on Dynamite News:
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has granted 10 days' time to Centre to decide the request of the Aam Aadmi Party for temporary allotment of land for office space. Center had sought four weeks' time to decide the request of AAP.
Justice Sanjeev Narula refused to grant four weeks' time. He granted ten days' time to decide the representation. The matter has been listed on July 25.
Advocate Kirtimaan Singh appeared for the central government and sought time to decide the representation. Six weeks' time is coming to an end tomorrow.
Senior advocate Rahul Mhera appeared for AAP and opposed the request for granting four weeks' time to Centre.
In June, the High Court had granted six weeks' time to decide the request for temporary allotment of land for office space.
On June 5, the High Court decided a petition of the Aam Aadmi Party seeking allotment of a space to use as its party office till the permanent allotment of land for the construction of its office.
The High Court had said that the Aam Aadmi Party is entitled to use a housing unit as its party office until the permanent allotment of land for the construction of its office.
Justice Subramonium Prasad had said, "The dispute regarding allotment of land to the petitioner cannot be a reason to deprive the petitioner of its entitlement to be given a housing unit to be used as a temporary office in accordance with the consolidated instructions for allotment of government accommodation from the general pool to national and state-level political parties."
Also Read |
Election Commission has banned Aam Aadmi Party's Lok Sabha campaign song, alleges Aatishi
"The fact as to whether the petitioner would be entitled to a plot of land in Central Delhi or not is the subject matter of another written petition," Justice Prasad said in the judgement passed on June 5.
The bench also mentioned that this Court can take judicial notice of the fact that there has always been pressure on the pool of houses available for allotment to the officers, but that pressure has not deterred allotment of houses to other political parties for office purposes in accordance with the consolidated instructions for allotment of government accommodation from the general pool to national and state-level political parties.
"The fact that there is a huge pressure cannot be the only reason for the respondents to deny the petitioner its right to be allotted accommodation from the GPRA for setting up its party office," the bench had observed.
The High Court had noted that there is no material on record to show that the said request of the petitioner has been rejected.
The High Court had directed the Central Government to consider the request of the petitioner within six weeks from today and take a decision by passing a detailed order as to why even one housing unit from the GPRA cannot be allotted to the petitioner when all other political parties have been allotted similar accommodation from the GPRA.
"Let a detailed order deciding the request of the petitioner be provided to the petitioner so that the petitioner can take other remedial steps available to it under law if the request of the petitioner is not being considered adequately," the high court had ordered.
While deciding the petition, the High Court also took note of the consolidated guidelines for allotment of GPRA to political parties, which say that the National Political Parties, recognized by the Election Commission of India, shall be allowed to retain/secure allotment of one housing unit from General Pool in Delhi for their office use on payment of the normal license fee.
Secondly, the said accommodation will be provided for a period of three years, during which the party will acquire a plot of land in an institutional area and construct its own accommodation for the party office.
Also Read |
Defamation complaint filed against Arvind Kejriwal, Atishi before Delhi court
The High Court had said that a perusal of the said clause indicates that National Political Parties have a right to retain/secure the allotment of one housing unit from General Pool in Delhi for their office use on payment of a license fee, and the said accommodation will be provided for a period of three years during which the party will acquire a plot of land in an institutional area and will construct its own accommodation for the party office.
The High Court also took note of the submissions that the petitioner was offered Plots No. 3, 7, & 8 in Sector VI, Saket, for the construction of their office in their capacity as a state party in 2014, however, the offer was rejected by the petitioner.
It is the case of the Central Government that had the petitioner taken the land offered to them in 2014, their office would have been constructed by 2017, and the petitioner would have had a permanent office.
It is also the case of the Center that the Petitioner was allotted Bungalow No.206, Rouse Avenue, on December 31, 2015, to be used as its temporary party office, and the Petitioner should have constructed its office in the meantime. The said argument cannot be accepted.
The fact that the Petitioner has not accepted the allotment of plots in Saket, for the construction of its Party Office as a National Party in 2014 or the fact that the Petitioner has not responded to the offer of the L&DO regarding allotment of Plots No. P2 & P3 Sector VI, Saket, to the Petitioner for construction of its Party Office as a National Party in 2024, is of no consequence and cannot be taken as an argument to deny the Petitioner a temporary accommodation to be used as a party office for a period of three years, as the claim of the Petitioner is on the basis of the fact that it is a National Party.
However, the High Court had said that the petitioner is not the GNCTD, and Plots No. 23 and 24, DDU Marg, were given to the GNCTD and not to the petitioner, and, therefore, the petitioner does not have the right to claim the said plots. (ANI)