New Delhi [India], The Delhi High Court on Wednesday ruled on Aam Aadmi Party's plea seeking allotment of space to be used as party office till permanent allotment of land for construction of its office. Was.
The High Court said that the Aam Aadmi Party is entitled to use a housing unit as its party office until permanent allotment of land for construction of its office.
Justice Subramaniam Prasad said, "The dispute regarding allotment of land to the petitioner cannot be a reason to deny the petitioner the right to be given a dwelling unit for use as a temporary office in accordance with the consolidated instructions for allotment of government accommodation Is." "Whether the petitioner would be entitled to a plot of land in Central Delhi or not is the subject matter of another writ petition," Justice Prasad said in the judgment passed on June 5.,
The bench said, “This Court may take judicial cognizance of the fact that there has always been pressure on the housing pool available for allotment to officials, but that pressure has not hindered other political parties from allotting housing for office purposes. Consolidated instructions for allotment of government accommodation from the common pool to national and state level political parties.
The bench said, "The fact that there is immense pressure cannot be the only reason for the respondents to deny to the petitioner the right to allot accommodation from GPRA for setting up his party office." The high court said that on record it There is no material to show that the said request of the petitioner has been rejected.
The High Court has directed the Central Government to consider the petitioner's request within six weeks from today and pass a detailed order and decide as to why not a single housing unit from the GPRA can be allotted to the petitioner while all other political The parties have been allotted equal accommodation from GPRA."A detailed order deciding the petitioner's request be provided to the petitioner so that the petitioner can take other remedial steps available under law, if the petitioner's request is not being adequately considered," the high court ordered. While deciding the petition, the High Court also took note of the Consolidated Guidelines for Allocation of GPRA to Political Parties, which says; National political parties recognized by the Election Commission of India will be permitted to retain/secure allotment of one accommodation unit from the General Pool in Delhi for their office use on payment of General 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 make its accommodation for the party office.
The High Court held that a perusal of the said section indicates that national political parties have the right to retain/secure the allotment of an accommodation unit from the general pool in Delhi for their office use on payment of license fee and the said accommodation Will be given. A period of three years during which the party will acquire a plot of land in an institutional area and build its residence for the party office.The High Court also took note of the submission that the petitioner, as a State party, was offered Plot No. 3, 7 and 8, Sector VI, Saket in 2014 for construction of its office, however, the offer was rejected. Was done. The petitioner.
It is the case of the Central Government that if the petitioner had taken the land given to him in 2014, his 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 to be used as a temporary party office on 31.12.2015 and the petitioner should have constructed his office in the meantime. The said contention cannot be accepted. The fact that the petitioner as State Party has not accepted the allotment of plots at Saket for construction of its permanent office in 2014 or the fact that the petitioner has purchased Plot No. P2 and has not responded to the proposal of L&DO regarding allocation of Rs.There is no result of the application given by the petitioner for construction of its party office as a national party in 2024 at P3 Sector VI, Saket and it is to be used by the petitioner as a party office for a period as a temporary Denial of accommodation cannot be justified. The petitioner's claim is based on the fact that it is a national party.
However, the High Court held that the petitioner is not GNCTD and Plot Nos. 23 and 24, DDU Marg, were given to GNCTD and not to the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner has no right to claim the said plots.
The High Court said that the Aam Aadmi Party is entitled to use a housing unit as its party office until permanent allotment of land for construction of its office.
Justice Subramaniam Prasad said, "The dispute regarding allotment of land to the petitioner cannot be a reason to deny the petitioner the right to be given a dwelling unit for use as a temporary office in accordance with the consolidated instructions for allotment of government accommodation Is." "Whether the petitioner would be entitled to a plot of land in Central Delhi or not is the subject matter of another writ petition," Justice Prasad said in the judgment passed on June 5.,
The bench said, “This Court may take judicial cognizance of the fact that there has always been pressure on the housing pool available for allotment to officials, but that pressure has not hindered other political parties from allotting housing for office purposes. Consolidated instructions for allotment of government accommodation from the common pool to national and state level political parties.
The bench said, "The fact that there is immense pressure cannot be the only reason for the respondents to deny to the petitioner the right to allot accommodation from GPRA for setting up his party office." The high court said that on record it There is no material to show that the said request of the petitioner has been rejected.
The High Court has directed the Central Government to consider the petitioner's request within six weeks from today and pass a detailed order and decide as to why not a single housing unit from the GPRA can be allotted to the petitioner while all other political The parties have been allotted equal accommodation from GPRA."A detailed order deciding the petitioner's request be provided to the petitioner so that the petitioner can take other remedial steps available under law, if the petitioner's request is not being adequately considered," the high court ordered. While deciding the petition, the High Court also took note of the Consolidated Guidelines for Allocation of GPRA to Political Parties, which says; National political parties recognized by the Election Commission of India will be permitted to retain/secure allotment of one accommodation unit from the General Pool in Delhi for their office use on payment of General 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 make its accommodation for the party office.
The High Court held that a perusal of the said section indicates that national political parties have the right to retain/secure the allotment of an accommodation unit from the general pool in Delhi for their office use on payment of license fee and the said accommodation Will be given. A period of three years during which the party will acquire a plot of land in an institutional area and build its residence for the party office.The High Court also took note of the submission that the petitioner, as a State party, was offered Plot No. 3, 7 and 8, Sector VI, Saket in 2014 for construction of its office, however, the offer was rejected. Was done. The petitioner.
It is the case of the Central Government that if the petitioner had taken the land given to him in 2014, his 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 to be used as a temporary party office on 31.12.2015 and the petitioner should have constructed his office in the meantime. The said contention cannot be accepted. The fact that the petitioner as State Party has not accepted the allotment of plots at Saket for construction of its permanent office in 2014 or the fact that the petitioner has purchased Plot No. P2 and has not responded to the proposal of L&DO regarding allocation of Rs.There is no result of the application given by the petitioner for construction of its party office as a national party in 2024 at P3 Sector VI, Saket and it is to be used by the petitioner as a party office for a period as a temporary Denial of accommodation cannot be justified. The petitioner's claim is based on the fact that it is a national party.
However, the High Court held that the petitioner is not GNCTD and Plot Nos. 23 and 24, DDU Marg, were given to GNCTD and not to the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner has no right to claim the said plots.
