Amid reports that former Chief Ministers of UP, who have been asked to vacate government bungalows after a Supreme Court order, were looking ways to circumvent the order, petitioner SN Shukla wrote to Estate Officer to implement the Apex Court order in letter and spirit or else face a contempt of court order.
General secretary of lok Prahari, S.N Shukla, said in his letter to the Estate Officer on May 25 that any relaxation sought in this case beyond two weeks as prescribed in the Act, amounted to contempt of court.
The day Shukla wrote the letter, BSP chief Mayawati contested Estate department’s order saying that the house where she was staying was a memorial in memory of Kanshi Ram.
In his four page letter, Shukla said, “…the ploy of Mayawati to retain her palatial residence at 13-A Mall Avenue in the name of ‘Shri Kanshiram Yadgar Vishram Sthal’ is patently untenable as the residence is allotted in her name as former CM of UP and not in the name of the said ‘Sthal’. Merely putting up a board in the name of a trust does not convert government bungalow into private memorial.”
Shukla said that as per news reports Akhilesh Yadav wanted two years time and was planning to move the Apex Court.
“A similar request has been made by his father Mulayam Singh while N D Tewari’s wife has sought retention of government bungalow (1-A Mall Avenue) for anotehr year.
“The requests of ex-CMs for deferring the implementation of categorical direction in judgment dated 1.8.2016 in the earlier Writ Petition (C) No. 657/2004 (which has again become effective after the judgment dated 7.5.2018) to ex-CMs to vacate bungalows within two months, are liable to be rejected outright for the simple reason that they are already in contempt of the Apex Court,” Shukla said in his letter.
“They (former CMs) have not only flouted direction to vacate bungalows for 3 months till its re-allotment in January 2017 under the 2016 Act, but also they have not paid penal rent payable under the rules for the period of their unauthorized occupation of bungalows from the date of first occupation till now,” he said.
Shukla even said that the request of Akhilesh Yadav deserved to be summarily rejected as he occupied the second bungalow in utter disregard of provision in Section 4(1) of the 1981 Act permitting only one government residence.
“His conduct of occupying the second bungalow even after the judgment of August 1, 2016 with a view to retain it after demitting office and getting the 2016 Amendment Act passed for this purpose with a view to nullifying the judgment, does not qualify for any relief,” Shukla said in his letter.
He further wrote : “Even on merits, the reasons given by him are not valid. He asked government accommodation because of his security which can be provided to him, like other ex-CMs even in a private house. There is no dearth of suitable private houses in lucknow and any builder, real estate agent will feel obliged to secure him a suitable house. Rent should not be a problem for the national chief of party which is the richest regional party as per report of Association for Democratic Reforms.”
Shukla further said, “Since his term as MlC has already expired, the state government is under no obligation to provide him any government accommodation in lucknow. Similarly, request of Mulayam Singh Yadav on identical grounds, is liable to be rejected for similar reasons,” he said.
As regards request of ND. Tewari, he may not own a house in lucknow, but his wife and his son from second marriage own a house in lucknow.