Ocular Evidence Prevails Over Medical Findings: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Despite Negative Semen Report & Police Lapses High Court Cannot Pass Inconsistent Orders: Supreme Court Quashes Demolition Order Passed Despite Earlier Restraint In CMDA Regularisation Dispute Supreme Court Upholds Validity Of Open University Degrees Obtained Prior To 2017 Cut-Off Must Be A Polluter Before Being Held Absolutely Liable: Supreme Court Sets Aside NGT Order Against Art Of Living Over Yamuna Event, Orders ₹5 Cr Refund Father Cannot Be Deprived Of Minor's Custody Unless Proved Unfit: Allahabad High Court Hands Over 4-Yr-Old Child To Father, Sets Aside Trial Court Order Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Integral To Personal Liberty': Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail As 24 Witnesses Remain Unexamined No Specific Chemical Opinion That Seized Substance Was Ganja: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Under Section 2(iii)(b) NDPS Act Mere Pendency Of Criminal Cases Simplicitor No Ground For Externment': Karnataka High Court Quashes Raichur SDM Order Order VI Rule 16 CPC | Defendants Enjoy Greater Latitude In Altering Defence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Explains Doctrinal Leeway Under CPC Boarding Running Train Not Self-Inflicted Injury: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Order Denying Compensation Possession Of One Co-Sharer Is Possession Of All: J&K&L High Court Cannot Invoke Article 226 For Registering FIR Or Restoring Water Supply: Kerala High Court Natural Guardian's Sale Of Minor's Property Without Court Nod Is Voidable, Extinguishes If Not Challenged Within 3 Years Of Majority: Madras High Court Orissa High Court Rejects Cancer-Survivor Husband's Plea To Transfer Maintenance Case Presumption Of Correctness Of Judicial Records Not Absolute And Can Be Rebutted By Direct Evidence: Kerala High Court on Married Daughter Cannot Challenge Partition After 21-Year Slumber If She Had Knowledge: Madhya Pradesh High Court Kerala High Court Orders Immediate Suspension Of Lakshadweep CJM For Allegedly Forging Witness Deposition To Convict Accused

National Political Parties Entitled to Allotment for Temporary Office Space: Delhi High Court Directs Government to Reconsider AAP’s Request for Temporary Office Space

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Delhi High Court has directed the Union of India to reconsider the request of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) for temporary office space from the General Pool Residential Accommodation (GPRA). The judgment, delivered by Justice Subramonium Prasad, underscores the entitlement of national political parties to secure temporary office accommodation from the GPRA, despite an acute shortage of government residences.

The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), recognized as a National Party by the Election Commission of India on April 10, 2023, filed a writ petition seeking a temporary housing unit from the GPRA for office use. AAP’s request for temporary accommodation was based on the Compendium of the Allotment of Government Residences (General Pool in Delhi) Rules, 1963, which allows national political parties to retain or secure one housing unit for office use for three years while constructing a permanent office.

Despite several offers of land in non-central locations, AAP had rejected these offers, insisting on a centrally located plot. AAP also contested the cancellation of Bungalow No. 206, Rouse Avenue, which they had been using as a temporary office. The Supreme Court, in a related order, directed AAP to vacate the bungalow by June 15, 2024, and move the Land and Development Office (L&DO) for alternate land allotment.

Credibility of the Petitioner’s Claim Justice Subramonium Prasad emphasized the legitimacy of AAP’s request, stating, “The fact that the Petitioner is a National Political Party cannot be overlooked.” The court acknowledged that under the relevant guidelines, national political parties have a right to secure temporary office accommodation from the GPRA.

Acute Shortage of GPRA: The respondents, represented by the Ministry of Urban Affairs, argued that the acute shortage of GPRA accommodations made it infeasible to grant AAP’s request. They cited a long waiting list of eligible officers awaiting accommodation due to the redevelopment of seven GPRA colonies.

Rejection of Non-Central Land Offers: AAP’s rejection of the plots offered in Saket was highlighted by the respondents. However, the court deemed this irrelevant to the party’s entitlement to temporary accommodation as a national party. “The fact that the Petitioner has not accepted the allotment of plots for construction of their permanent office is of no consequence and cannot be taken as an argument to deny the Petitioner a temporary accommodation,” noted the court.

The court extensively referred to the Consolidated Instructions for allotment of Government Accommodation to National and State level Political Parties, which state that recognized national parties are entitled to one housing unit from the GPRA for office use for three years. The judgment clarified that the acute shortage of accommodations cannot be the sole reason for denial. “The pressure on the Pool of houses available for allotment to officers has not deterred allotment of houses to other political parties for office purposes,” the court remarked.

Justice Subramonium Prasad stated, “National Political Parties, which have been recognized as such by the Election Commission of India, shall be allowed to retain/secure allotment of one housing unit from General Pool in Delhi for their office use on payment of license fee under FR 45A.”

The High Court’s decision mandates the Union of India to reconsider AAP’s request within six weeks and provide a detailed order if the request is denied. This judgment reinforces the legal framework ensuring temporary office accommodation for national political parties, ensuring equitable treatment in the allocation of government resources.

Date of Decision: June 5, 2024

Aam Aadmi Party vs. Union of India & Anr.

Latest Legal News