Mulayam, Akhilesh move SC seeking ‘appropriate’ time to vacate government bungalows
Six former chief ministers who have been asked to vacate the government bungalows include Samajwadi Party patriarch Mulayam Singh Yadav, SP chief Akhilesh Yadav, BSP chief Mayawati, ND Tiwari, BJP leaders Rajnath Singh and Kalyan Singh.Updated: May 28, 2018 21:23 IST
New Delhi, Hindustan Times
Former chief ministers of Uttar Pradesh Mulayam Singh Yadav and his son Akhilesh Yadav moved the Supreme Court on Monday asking for “appropriate time” to vacate official residences allotted to them by the state government.
The top court SC had on May 7 ordered that former chief ministers cannot retain government accommodations once they demit office. The court had struck down an amendment in UP’s legislation allowing former chief ministers to continue living in government houses.
Subsequent to the SC verdict, the state’s estate department had issued eviction notices six former CMs of UP, including Mulayam and Akhilesh, giving them 15 days time to move out. Others on the list included Union home minister Rajnath Singh and governor of Rajasthan Kalyan Singh.
After the notice, Mulayam and Akhilesh first moved the estate department for permission to live in their residences for two more years. They claimed the time would be needed to move into their private accommodation.
On Monday, While Mulayam sought sufficient time from the apex court to make arrangements for alternate accommodation, Akhilesh requested the court for time on security grounds.
“We are requesting the Supreme Court to grant us sufficient time to make arrangements for a suitable alternate accommodation, taking into consideration the security of the petitioner and his family members,” read Akhilesh’s petition before SC.
Rajnath Singh and Kalyan Singh had agreed to vacate their bungalows.
The top court’s order came on a petition filed by an NGO Lok Prahari, challenging the amendments made by the erstwhile Akhilesh Yadav government to the ‘UP Ministers (Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1981’.
The SC held that a CM cannot continue to occupy public property, and said the provision had the effect of creating a separate class of citizens for conferment of benefits by way of distribution of public property on the basis of the office held by them.
First Published: May 28, 2018 13:58 IST