The Chandigarh Administration on Tuesday earned the wrath of the Punjab and Haryana High Court for having a class of blue eyed officers who are given special privilege to select government houses they want to reside in,even as the Chandigarh Administration insisted for a safe house for its Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) Naunihal Singh. Questioning the security problem faced by the SSP,Justice Surya Kant refused to entertain the immediate urgency of demanding a house for the officer. The assertion that the SSP is without a house,raised by UT senior standing counsel Sanjay Kaushal,met with a sharp comment from the judge who said the SSP is without a house of his choice. Coming down heavily on the bureaucrats working in Chandigarh,Justice Surya Kant remarked: Since the matter is now on the judicial side,I will expose the bureaucrats who think it is their private property and can hijack it. The court pointed out that officers coming to Chandigarh on deputation would not vacate government houses. You have earmarked houses for SSPs and secretaries. The officers repatriated do not vacate the houses. What action has been taken against such officers who consider them their private properties? Give me the list, Justice Kant remarked. Your SSP is also on deputation. Same thing will happen to the house being demanded,which again will become a private property, the court remarked. Kaushal contended that though the SSP had a residence in Zirakpur,he (Naunihal) could not leave the city. He also averred that the SSP had been living with his father-in-law at his residence for the last four months. The court also highlighted that in contrary to provisions of the Constitution,the Administration had not allotted houses to several sitting High Court judges. Making it clear that the court is not asking for a favour,Justice Kant remarked that judges were entitled to accommodation. But here in UT,houses first go to bureaucrats and the rejected ones fall in the lap of judges. There are haunted houses which have been rejected by the bureaucrats and subsequently allotted to judges, he said. Giving the specific instance of a house in Sector 16,the court remarked: There is a house lying unoccupied,unattended,unused for the last five to six years. Is this not a criminal negligence? This negligence is towards a property situated in the most prime location of the city. Talk to the UT Administrator. Justice Kant added that the said house had been allotted to an HC judge. Initially,the Administration opined that the house was unfit and required demolition. When drawings were asked for,the Administration took a year and then said the house only required renovation but still no drawings have been provided so far, he said. The court has asked the UT Administration to furnish details with regard to the number of government houses allotted; name of occupants; date since the houses have been in occupation; the capacity in which the houses have been allotted to the occupants and from which pool (Punjab or Haryana). The list shall pertain to fifth and sixth category of government houses,which stand allotted till December 31,2010. The case has been adjourned for a week.
