Ajay Kumar Vashist v. Union of India

14.2. To the question whether he was on deputation to the Central Government, the petitioner answered „NO‟, which was again incorrect, inasmuch deputation to the ITPO is deputation to the Central Government.

14.3. Against his working office address details, the petitioner answered “DG, CRPF, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi”, which was also incorrect, inasmuch as his working office at that point in time was at the ITPO, Pragati Maidan, New Delhi.

14.4. As part of the declaration signed by him at the foot of the application, the petitioner declared under his own signatures that he was “working in an eligible office located in an eligible zone” and that he was also aware that misuse of the premises under the Central Government General Pool Residential Accommodation Rules, 2017, would attract penalties. This, it is submitted, was again incorrect, inasmuch as the petitioner was not working in an eligible office at that time.

15. Mr. Joshi contends, that all of the above constitute misrepresentations and false statements made by the petitioner in his application, by reason of which the allotment of official accommodation of the petitioner has been cancelled by way of the impugned cancellation notice; and this has been done retrospectively w.e.f. 17.01.2020 since that was the date on which the petitioner came to occupy the upgraded Type-V(A) accommodation.

16. Upon being queried, Mr. Joshi also clarifies that prior to taking action and issuing the cancellation notice, a show-cause notice dated 05.04.2022 was issued to the petitioner, seeking his response to the proposed action; to which however the petitioner appears to have sent no reply.

17. Upon a specific query in this regard, counsel for the parties confirm that the petitioner continues to occupy the official accommodation till date only by reason of the protection granted vide order dated 01.08.2022 made by a Division Bench of this court in LPA NO. 458/2022, which was subsequently confirmed vide order dated 28.11.2022; whereby the Division Bench had directed the DoE not to evict the petitioner, subject to the petitioner paying the normal rent.

18. To be sure, in order dated 28.11.2022, the Division Bench had also said that the court seized of the present petition will “... decide the writ petition on its own merits without being influenced by the orders passed by this Court in the present LPA”. The Division Bench had further made it clear that the interim relief granted to the petitioner shall continue to be in force “... during the pendency of the Writ Petition before the learned Single Judge”.

19. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and after giving due consideration to the submissions made on both sides, this court is persuaded to accept the following position:

19.1. There cannot be any cavil with the position that allotment letter dated 18.11.2019 whereby the petitioner was allotted Type-V(A) accommodation by the DoE w.e.f. 10.11.2019, which the petitioner came to occupy w.e.f. 16.01.2020, was based upon the petitioner‟s application dated 20.03.2019 which was made by the petitioner under his own hand and signatures.

19.2. In that application, the petitioner made the following representations and disclosures:(i) that the office he was holding (viz., General Manager (Security), ITPO) was eligible for GPRA;

(ii) that he was not on deputation to the Central Government; (iii) that his working office address was DG, CRPF, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road; and (iv) that he was working in an eligible office insofar as allotment of accommodation from GPRA was concerned. Each of these representations and disclosures was incorrect, and so to the petitioner’s knowledge.

20. Insofar as other ancillary communications are concerned, inter-alia letter dated 26.07.2019 issued by the ITPO to the DoE seeking extension of permission for the petitioner to retain the Type-IV(S) accommodation till 30.06.2020, these do not detract from the misrepresentations that were contained in the petitioner‟s application dated 20.03.2019.

21. Moreover, the record also shows that the DoE issued to the petitioner a show-cause notice dated 05.04.2022, to which the petitioner appears to have offered no written response.

22. Any relevant and material misrepresentation of fact made by an applicant, as a consequence of which some benefit is availed from the State, would invariably vitiate the entitlement to such benefit. In the present case, the misrepresentations contained in the petitioner‟s application, which application was made under the petitioner‟s own hand and signatures, were relevant and material to the allotment of accommodation made to him. In fact, but for the misrepresentations so made, the petitioner was ineligible for allotment of official accommodation from the GPRA at all. Rule 10(3) of the Central Government General Pool Residential Accommodation Rules, 2017 reads as under: ALLOTMENT PROCEDURE

10. Application for accommodation (1) * * * * * (2) * * * * * (3) The applicant shall furnish various particulars in form specified by the Directorate of Estates which shall be verified by the office of the applicant and in case of any discrepancy in the application or furnishing of incorrect information in the application, the applicant and the verifying officer shall be liable for furnishing of incorrect information and disciplinary action shall be taken against them including cancellation of allotment of accommodation if allotment was made based on incorrect information. (emphasis supplied)

23. In the opinion of this court, the petitioner‟s assertion that regardless of such misrepresentations, the DoE was otherwise aware of the petitioner‟s posting, must be rejected since that assertion does not answer the lack of bona-fides on the petitioner‟s part in making misrepresentations in his own application. The petitioner cannot shirk his responsibility to have informed the DoE the correct position, namely that he was ineligible for allotment from the GPRA, by saying that the DoE knew about it in other indirect ways. Official business cannot be permitted to be transacted on such basis.

24. In view of the above, and upon an overall conspectus of the facts and circumstances of the case, this court finds no merit in the grounds taken by the petitioner to seek setting-aside of cancellation notice dated 07.07.2022, whereby the allotment of the Type-V(A) accommodation made to the petitioner, has been cancelled.

25. Furthermore, since the allotment came to be made based on evident misrepresentations made by the petitioner in his application, this court also finds nothing remiss in the cancellation being made effective retrospectively from 17.01.2020, which is the date on which the petitioner came to occupy the Type-V(A) accommodation.

26. As a sequitur to the above, the challenge to Cancellation Notice dated 07.07.2022 and Order dated 12.07.2022 fails; and the DoE shall be entitled to take any further or consequential action in respect of the subject premises, as may be warranted, in accordance with law.

27. However, considering the logistical compulsions and exigencies; the fact that the petitioner is presently residing in the subject premises along with his family; and as a measure of abundant indulgence, the petitioner is granted 03 (three) months from the date of release of this order to vacate the subject premises, subject of course to payment of the usual and ordinary license fee/user charges in the meantime.

28. It is also made clear that the present judgment is without prejudice to the rights of the DoE to levy and demand from the petitioner damages/charges for unauthorized use and occupation of the subject premises, as may be permissible, in accordance with law; which aspect has not been touched upon in the present proceedings.

29. The writ petition is dismissed in the above terms.

30. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed-of.