The Delhi High Court Tuesday allowed AAP MP Raghav Chadha's plea against a trial court order that had paved the way for the Rajya Sabha Secretariat to dispossess him of a type VII government bungalow. This means that Chadha, for now, will not have to vacate the bungalow. Chadha had moved the high court against the October 5 order of the additional district judge (ADJ) of Patiala house courts, who had vacated an April 18 interim order which stopped the secretariat from dispossessing Chadha of the bungalow. Against the interim order, the secretariat filed a review that was allowed by the ADJ, holding that Chadha had not shown urgency as sought for and returned the plaint (a pleading in a lawsuit) to him, asking him to serve a notice to the secretariat. Allowing Chadha's plea, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani revived the April 18 interim order, observing that it will stay in force until Chadha's application for interim relief before the trial court is decided. It directed Chadha to represent the plaint within three days of today's pronouncement. Holding that Chadha's application for interim relief is restored, the high court directed the trial court first to decide the application and then hear the main lawsuit as per law. Justice Bhambhani observed that Chadha, in his lawsuit, had sued only the Rajya Sabha Secretariat "as an institution or body" and not its secretary general, who is a person. As per Section 80(1) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), a suit against a public officer or government cannot be filed without giving a two-month notice. But under Section 80(2), a suit for urgent relief can be filed without giving notice after getting the court's permission; however, an interim order cannot be passed without hearing the public officer The high court said that Chadha had sought a restraint on the secretariat from taking any action pursuant to its March 3 order, which cancelled his bungalow allotment. Pointing to the exhaustive definition of "public officer" under the CPC, the high court said that the secretariat does not fall within the ambit of a person who could be a government officer or serving under the government. "Besides, it would stretch all canons of statutory construction to even debate whether the Rajya Sabha Secretariat is a public officer, since clearly a public officer must be a natural person; and that term cannot refer to an institution or body," the court added. It further said that the Rajya Sabha Secretariat, being the permanent administrative office of the Rajya Sabha, which is one of the Houses of Parliament, is a "separate and distinct institution from the government", which is the "executive wing of the State". The court, therefore, said that in this case, "government" under Section 80 of the CPC would not include the secretariat; hence, Section 80 has no application to Chadha's lawsuit, and therefore, it is not necessary for the court to decide whether Chadha had established urgency under Section 80(2). Chadha was earlier allotted a type VI bungalow in July last year. He made a representation for the allotment of a type VII bungalow in August 2022 that was approved in September 2022. After the HC order, AAP MP Raghav Chadha issued a statement. “This is not an issue of saving a house or a shop, it is a fight to save the Constitution. I thank the Hon’ble Delhi High Court for setting aside the order of the trial court, which was against me. Glad that in the end, truth and justice have prevailed," the statement said.
