The Delhi High Court on Wednesday questioned the motive behind the PIL filed by a society against illegal occupation of government accommodation by retired public servants, particularly the former chairman of the Forward Market Commission.
A bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan directed the petitioner society -- Chennai Financial Markets and Accountability -- to file an affidavit indicating its bonafide and that it has no personal grudge against the former chairman of the Forward Market Commission.
The bench also directed the society to deposit Rs 35,000 in court within two weeks so that if its plea was unsuccessful, the amount can be given to the retired public servant who has been specifically named in the petition.
The court also directed the society to give details of its memorandum of association and articles of association, saying it wants to see its aims and objectives.
It said after the amount is deposited and after examining the society's additional affidavit, the court will decide whether to issue notice in the matter.
With the direction, the court adjourned the matter to July 23.
During the hearing, the bench questioned the society's motive to only name the former chairman of the Forward Market Commission (FMC) and no one else in the petition which has raised a general issue of illegal occupation of government accommodation by retired officials.
"This general holier than thou attitude does not seem genuine. We have doubt about your bonafide," the court said.
Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma and central government standing counsel Ajay Digpaul, appearing for the Ministry of Housing, told the court that the petition was not in public interest and was "targeting" a private individual and therefore, should be dismissed with costs.
The ASG also said that a similar PIL was already being examined by the court and in that matter the ministry has disclosed details of all illegal occupants of government accommodation, action taken and amounts recovered from them.
The society in its petition has sought action against the illegal retention of government accommodation by retired officials beyond the permissible limit of six months.
It has contended that many such officials also have their own personal residence in the same city, yet they continue to retain the concessional government housing even after retirement.
The petition has also contended that alleged lack of action against these retired officials was causing huge loss to the public exchequer and has sought review of all concessional retention of accommodation allowed by the government.
It has sought eviction of all retired public servants who are retaining government accommodation despite having personal houses in the same city and those who have stayed beyond the permissible limit of six months.
Tags
National