Allegations In Matrimonial Disputes Must Be Specific And Supported By Foundation Facts To Avoid Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Supreme Court Modifies Sentence To Period Already Undergone Citing Medical Condition And Expression Of Remorse Qualification Of '10+2 System' Cannot Be Equated With Other Certifications Absent An Equivalence Clause: Supreme Court Essential Qualifications In Recruitment Cannot Be Diluted Or Subject To Judicial Equivalence: Supreme Court Court Has Discretion To Decide Genuineness Of Signature By Comparison; Not Essential To Invoke Expert Opinion In All Cases: Supreme Court Civil Disputes Cannot Be Converted Into Criminal Offences To Recover Money: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Section 420 IPC Taxing Authorities Must Classify Goods Based On Form At Time Of Sale, Not End Use: Supreme Court Suit For Declaration Of Status Must Seek Consequential Relief To Avoid Bar Of Proviso: Allahabad High Court Illegal Detention | Police Failure To Maintain CCTV Footage Invokes Adverse Presumption Under Sec 119 BSA Against State: Allahabad High Court Section 138 NI Act | Accused Rebuts Presumption By Proving Intimation Of Misplaced Cheque To Bank And Lack Of Documentation For Alleged Settlement: Andhra Pradesh High Court Garnishee Proceedings Under CPC | Disputed Debt Cannot Be Summarily Adjudicated Without Leading Evidence: Bombay High Court Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act 2022 | Magistrate’s Power Under Section 5 To Direct DNA Profiling Is Not Conditional Upon Consent: Calcutta High Court Conviction Based On 'Assumption And Presumption' Cannot Be Sustained: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Limitation Act | Suit For Specific Performance Must Be Filed Within Reasonable Time Even If No Date For Performance Is Fixed: Delhi High Court Enrolment As Advocate | Bar Council Must Consider 'Equivalent Qualifications' Under Rule 4(a) Rules Of Legal Education: Karnataka High Court Section 482 BNSS | Pre-Arrest Bail Is Not A Matter Of Course; Must Show Special Case For Invoking Extraordinary Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Hindu Succession Act | A Co-parcener Cannot Alienate Entire Property; Non-Impleaded Legal Heir Not Bound By Previous Decree: Madras High Court Purchaser During Pendency Of Suit Bound By Compromise Decree, Cannot Treat It As Void In Collateral Proceedings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 23 Rule 1-A CPC | In Partition Suits, Defendants Asserting A Share Can Seek Transposition If Original Plaintiffs Withdraw: Patna High Court Section 69 BNS | Suppression Of Subsisting Marriage Or Live-In Relationship During Marriage Proposal Constitutes 'Deceitful Means': Kerala High Court Anticipatory Bail | Mere Apprehension Of Investigating Agency Is Insufficient To Deny Bail Without Demonstrating Necessity Of Custodial Interrogation: Telangana High Court Income Tax Evasion | Criminal Prosecution Under Section 276C IT Act Cannot Sustain Once Foundation Assessment Order Is Set Aside: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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