Live
- Rajanth Singh lauds armed forces for rescuing 2 foreign mountaineers from U'khand
- BJP's double-engine means inflation, corruption: Arvind Kejriwal in AAP's Janta ki Adalat
- Medvedev beats Arnaldi under roof in Shanghai, doubles matches cancelled due to rain
- Gujarat: Cotton cultivation rises by 9 lakh hectares in two decades
- Kiran Choudhary dismisses Haryana exit polls, says BJP will form govt
- CBI gets clues on how Sandip Ghosh-Ashish Pandey nexus accepted cash through paper leaks
- Egypt sends 22 tonnes of humanitarian aid to Lebanon
- Young India Integrated Schools Model Unveiled
- Dasara box office battle: Six films set to clash
- Kiren Rijiju applauds Modi govt’s move to elevate Pali to Classical Language
SC seeks response from Centre, State govts
.jpg "SC seeks response from Centre, State govts")
A two-member bench of the apex court headed by Justice Chalameshwar, here on Thursday, adjourned the case of allotment of house sites to the members of Legislature, bureaucracy and others seeking the response of the Centre, State governments and Union Territories on their housing policies by May 2.
The case relates to United AP government under late Chief Minister Y S Rajasekhara Reddy allocating houses sites to legislators, judges and journalists
New Delhi: A two-member bench of the apex court headed by Justice Chalameshwar, here on Thursday, adjourned the case of allotment of house sites to the members of Legislature, bureaucracy and others seeking the response of the Centre, State governments and Union Territories on their housing policies by May 2. It also asked the governments to explore the possibility of evolving a uniform housing policy framework applicable States.
The case related to allocation of house sites during the Congress regime of the then United AP under late Y S Rajasekhara Reddy's Chief Minister. The government then issued a GO allotting house sites to judiciary, bureaucracy, legislatures and journalists in and around Hyderabad at concessional prices. The members of the Judiciary, namely the judges, refused to accept the offer and kept themselves out of it. This was challenged later and the then High Court ruled that the benefit should be passed on to only those who did not own any house site or house.
Later the government filed civil appeal in the Supreme Court contending that it would provide the benefit one time alone and hence be allowed to proceed with the same.Senior Counsel, Prashant Bhushan and senior advocate, Niranjan Reddy, on behalf of the original petitioner, Chelikani, opposed the house site allocation questioning the very basis of the move. "Do these privileged sections deserve such concessionaires? Does not it go against the spirit of the Article 14 of the Constitution granting equality to all in this country? Does not this violation deprive weaker sections of the benefit? What are the criteria in picking up these for the benefit," they questioned.
Agreeing with their contention, the Bench sought to know the basis of such policies and whether there is a basic framework for such housing policy. When senior counsel, Anil Dave, arguing on behalf of the Telangana State government, said he would get back to the court with the State government's policy on the same afresh, the Bench further sought a clarification on the modality to decide whether a beneficiary owned a property previously.
"Whether it should be within a particular distance from the Capital or if someone has it, say, elsewhere how does one decide," was the question that sought to be answered. The bench then concluded that lack of a uniform policy should be addressed first and the governments should explain their stand on the same. The Bench ordered that all the Standing Counsels be served a copy of the order seeking their responses. When senior counsel A K Ganguly tried to intervene on behalf of the Bench shot back "what are the interests of AP as the land is in Telangana".
