Leader of the Trinamool Congress and former MP Mahua Moitra filed an appeal with the Delhi High Court on Thursday, requesting a temporary stay on her eviction from the government-allotted home in New Delhi following her expulsion from the parliament. However, the application was denied. Judge Girish Kathpalia ruled late in the evening that Moitra was entitled to the accommodation since she was a member of parliament and that her status as such ended when she was ousted.
“The petitioner’s government accommodation was granted in tandem with her role as a Member of Parliament, but that relationship ended with her expulsion. The Court noted that “no specific rule dealing with the eviction of Members of Parliament from the government accommodation after they cease to be the members has been brought before this court.”
The High Court cannot offer her relief from eviction from the official residence under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court concluded, because the Supreme Court has not delayed her expulsion from parliament.
“To sum up, this court is not inclined to invoke jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution at this time to restrain the operation of the impugned eviction order, given the ongoing nature of the petitioner’s expulsion case before the Hon. Supreme Court, the inextricably linked nature of the extension of time to vacate the government accommodation, and the petitioner’s lack of right as of right now. Thus, the application is dismissed,” the lone judge decided.
On January 16, Moitra received an eviction notice requesting her to leave the flat right away. “Use of force” was threatened in the warning if Moitra would not leave the bungalow. On December 8, Moitra was dismissed from the Lok Sabha after the Ethics Panel determined that she had given businessman Darshan Hiranandani access to her parliamentary login credentials. She had previously been summoned to leave the flat by January 7 by the Estates Department of the Central Government.
Moitra filed a High Court challenge to the order. She eventually withdrew the request, stating that she would speak with the estates officer to be granted permission to remain in the flat until the Lok Sabha elections. She did, however, get a new eviction notice from the government earlier this week after her appeal to the Directorate of Estate was turned down. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma appeared on behalf of the Central government and told the court that Moitra has filed a Supreme Court challenge against her removal from the Lok Sabha.
The Court recommended that the issue surrounding Moitra’s eviction should be handled in the Supreme Court if her removal from the Lok Sabha is the focus of an ongoing lawsuit there. But Moitra’s lawyer made it clear that the Supreme Court was only considering her removal from the Lok Sabha, not her eviction from the government residence.
He said that even though Moitra had previously fought the eviction before the High Court, she had withdrawn her case and was free to contact the Directorate of Estates. Moitra’s attorney clarified that on January 5th, a representation was made to the Directorate, and on January 8th, she received a show cause notice requesting her appearance on January 11th. Moitra asked for more time due to health concerns, and the presentation was rescheduled for January 16.
Moitra’s solicitors came before the Estates officer and filed their reply while the representation was still ongoing. The Directorate postponed the action, stating that it will resume after the representation is determined. But the eviction order was passed and the representation was denied that same day. Moitra claimed that she was not provided a copy of the rejection order and that this was done without a hearing.
The attorney stressed that Moitra can remain for up to six months by paying additional fees in accordance with certain regulations. In light of this, he requested four months to leave the bungalow, citing health issues. However, the Court proposed a shorter deadline and questioned the necessity of giving Moitra four months to leave the lodging. ASG Chetan Sharma argued that there was no mention of Moitra’s medical condition in her representation to the Directorate of Estates. He emphasised that Moitra was no longer an MP and that the home was given to her as an MP. He further emphasised the fact that the Supreme Court had turned down Moitra’s request for temporary relief by delaying her expulsion, despite her fervent prayers.
Advocate Shadan Farasat claimed that Moitra had the right to remain in the flat by using Section 3(b) of The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act in her response submissions. He asserted that bed rest had been recommended for Moitra. But Moitra’s medical condition was not addressed in her representation to the Estates officer, the Court said. According to Farasat, the depiction was created prior to the diagnosis and procedure. “It was a serious surgery, I (Mahua Moitra) was in ICU for hours,” he stated. The Court decided that Moitra could be allowed to stay in the bungalow for three or four days on humanitarian grounds, but she could not claim a longer period of time on those grounds.
