/‘7 1 ‘IN THE HIGE COUR£ OF CEHATTISGARH AT @ASPUR W.P.No. 24% mm PETITIONER : Manta Ram Pawar, S] o Shri Subran sing}: Pawar, Aged about 38 years, Ex. ILLA. Rf o Viilage— Pakhanjur, Narayanpur,‘ District— Kanker (C.G.). —Versus — State of Chhath'aga‘rh, Through Secretary, Home Dexmrtm ent, Mantralnya, Shasu'i Chawk, Raipur (C.G.). Q State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Public Works. Deparunent, Mantrala§m Shasm ehawk, Raipur (cm. - Collector, Kanker (can). Sub Divisional OEcer (Revenue), Pakhanjur, Distxict— Kanker (C.G.). _ WRIT PETITIOI UNDER ARTICLE ggSlgZ’? OE m COIS‘I‘ITUIOR 0f 1331A FOR IESUAICE OF A SWABLE WRIT ORDm OR DIRECTION TO DO JUSTIQE IN Tu £51m. . ' I W A Mm HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Mantu Ram Pawar. VERSUS S : State ofChhaxttisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICL 226/227 OF THE CSTITUTION M E ON OF INDIA , . J ’ Present: Shri H.S.Ah1uwalia, Advocaie for the petitioner Shri Arun Sao, Govmment Advocate for the State/respondents okDER d; 2 (Passed on 29 day ofNovember, 011) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 04.08.2004 (Annexure P/6 whereby, the petitioner has been asked to vacate ) the omcial accommodation No. G/7 situated in village akhanjur, District Kanker, on the ground t te petitioner di n remain the Member of Legislative Asembly (for short ‘theMLA ’) and the officia accommodation has to be allotted to some otr prso namely Shri Vikram Singh Usendi, Vice-Chairman Bastar Development Authority. 2. Shri Ahluwalia, learned counsel appearingfor the petitioner submits that the allotment o he oilical quarter, as afostated, was made n 27.01.2001 (Annexure P/l) not only on the round that e was the MLA, but also eeiaiiig in View the special circumstances, being in naxalite area."Thus, the impugied order is bad'in law as even ifth petitioner did not continue t be an MLA, since the titioner was alloted under spial circumstancesrin accordance with Rule 9 and 10 of Shashkiay Awas Abantan WRIT PETITION No. 2496 of 2004 RESPONDENT SB: Honble Shri Satish K. AgnihotriLJ. e , P hat h d ot s l he en , f t i re o g h k e o pe t ec / “3 Niyam, 2000 (for short fthe Niyam, 2000 ’). Shri Ahluwalia relies on a letter ofthe Sub Divisional OElcer (Police) dated 03.03.2004 (Annexure P/5) addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Kanker, wherein it was indicated that there was a threat by the naxalites to the petitioner in his village Belgal. 0n the other hand, Shri Sao, learned counsel aypearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner was allotted Government accommodation on account of being sitting MLA After he discontinued as MLA, the impugned order was passed to vacate the otficial accommodation so that the same could be allotted to Shri Vikram Singh Usendi, Vice-Chairman Bastar Development Authority. So far as rule 9 and 10 of the Rules, 2000 are concerned, in the ease on hand, as the impugned order itself shows that the allotment was made to the petitioner being the MLA and by mere writing special circumstances, it cannot be held that the State has exercised its discretion in granting the omcial accommodation to the» petitioner under any other circumstances. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is evident that the allotment i order made to the petitioner was on the basis of being an elected MLA and further, he belonged toa naxalite affected area. Therefore, it appears, the petitioner was gamed official accommodation at Pakhanjur town in Distiict Kanker. Therealter, the petitioner could not be re-elected as MLA Thus, the impugned order dated 04.08.2004 was passed. Reliance ofthe petitioner on a ' communication dated 03.03.2004 (Annexure P/S) is not relevant in "Q2 3 V\ the case as the said Communication was issued aiier allotment of official accommodation on 27.07.2001. The impugned order also does not indicate that the order was passed having any bearing on the communication dated 03.03.2004. Though, the Government is mlly competent to consider the oases of any person under the provisions of Rule 9 and IO, but it is discretionary having regard to the several factors as mentioned in Rule 10 of the Rules, 2000. In the case on hand, the allotment was not made under the provisions of Rule 9 and 10 of the Rules, 2000. Thus, the impugned order is just and proper, warrants no interference. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Satish K. AgnihOtd Judge l l Sd/- l 4 Amit w