Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MP Raghav Chadha told the Delhi High Court on Wednesday that his eviction was selective and that there are other first-time MPs as well with identical accommodation above their entitlement, who have not been targeted.
Chadha had on Tuesday moved the high court against a trial court order ruling that he did not possess a vested right to continue occupying a government Type-7 bungalow on Pandara Road, which falls under Lutyens' Delhi, after the allotment was cancelled and the privilege withdrawn.
Last week, Additional District Judge Sudhanshu Kaushik of the Patiala House Courts had vacated his interim order, which had directed the Rajya Sabha Secretariat to refrain from evicting him from the bungalow without following due legal process.
These bungalows in question are allocated to lawmakers who have served as ministers, Chief Ministers, or Governors.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Chadha, said that the cancellation of the government accommodation had no direct connection with Chadha's suspension from the Rajya Sabha, which occurred months later.
He stated that the trial court's order appeared to be motivated by "legal malice".
Singhvi argued that the bungalow was allocated to Chadha after careful consideration by the Vice President in September last year and Chadha had accepted the allocation.
He contended that it could not be revoked by the Chairman of the House Committee, and pointed out that a significant number of MPs had been granted accommodations exceeding their entitlement, and Chadha was the only one facing eviction.
“What Vice President grants the Chairman of the House Committee cannot take away. What the Principal grants the agent cannot take away. Article 14 stares in the face. The Public Premises Act will not apply where proceedings are ongoing in injunction which is taken away by the review,” Singhvi contended.
On the opposing side, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Vikramjit Banerjee contested the petition, arguing that Chadha could not take inconsistent positions.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambani questioned whether the defendant in the suit, the Rajya Sabha Secretariat, should be considered a government entity under Section 80(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, or a public officer.
Banerjee responded that the "office of profit" argument was not applicable to a civil suit under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as he criticised Singhvi's interpretation of the law.
The matter has been listed for next hearing on October 12.
The trial court's order came in Chadha's suit against the Rajya Sabha Secretariat's decision to cancel the bungalow's allotment to him, following an order issued on March 3.
The Secretariat had then filed a review application seeking the recall of the interim order by the judge, which now stands vacated.
It was the Secretariat's case that the interim relief had been granted to Chadha without adhering to the procedure outlined in Section 80(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
The court had said that the interim relief granted in Chadha's case had been an apparent error, and the order dated April 18 was recalled and vacated.
In April, the court had directed the Secretariat not to dispossess Chadha from the bungalow during the pendency of the application without due process of law.