Case Background
The appellant was a former Member of the Bihar Legislative Assembly. He had been elected several times from Dhaka constituency starting from 1990 and was allotted Government Quarter No. 3, Taylor Road, Patna, as an MLA. This quarter was in a pool meant for ministers.
He continued to be allotted and occupy this same quarter during subsequent terms, including after his re-election in 2010, when Quarter No. 3, Taylor Road was re-allotted to him on 17.01.2011. On 14.03.2014, he resigned from the post of MLA to contest the 2014 Parliamentary elections, which he lost.
After his resignation, he was nominated as a member of the “State Legislature Research and Training Bureau” by Memo No. 2724 dated 27.10.2014, issued under Rule 283(j) of the Bihar Legislative Council Procedure and Conduct Rules. The appellant claimed that this nomination allowed him to continue enjoying all facilities at par with an MLA or MLC.
However, the Building Construction Department treated his continued stay in Quarter No. 3 after one month from his resignation as unauthorized. By letter dated 25.11.2015, the Executive Engineer directed him to vacate the quarter, stating that it had been earmarked for a minister. Fearing eviction, the appellant first filed CWJC No. 19237 of 2015 challenging the demand and the threat of eviction.
On 06.01.2016, he unconditionally withdrew this writ petition without asking the Court for permission to file a fresh case. He then filed Title Suit No. 03 of 2016 in the civil court against forcible eviction. Ultimately, due to continued pressure, the appellant vacated Quarter No. 3, Taylor Road, on 12.05.2016.
Later, by Letter No. 2001 dated 24.08.2016, the Executive Engineer (Tax Division), Building Construction Department, informed him that an amount of Rs. 20,98,757/- was payable as house rent/penal rent for the period of his overstaying between 14.04.2014 and 12.05.2016. This amount was to be recovered as dues.
The appellant then filed CWJC No. 19359 of 2016 before a Single Judge challenging this demand. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on 13.01.2021, holding that since the appellant had earlier withdrawn CWJC No. 19237 of 2015 without liberty, he could not re-agitate the same relief through a second writ petition. Against this order, the appellant filed the present Letters Patent Appeal No. 459 of 2021 before a Division Bench.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Division Bench of the Patna High Court, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Sinha, first looked at whether a second writ petition on the same cause of action was even maintainable after the first writ had been withdrawn unconditionally.
The Court noted that the learned Single Judge had relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots’ Associations of India and others vs. Director General of Civil Aviation and others, (2011) 5 SCC 435. In that case, the Supreme Court explained the doctrine of election and estoppel — a party cannot “blow hot and cold,” take inconsistent stands, and re-litigate after withdrawing a case without reserving liberty to file afresh.
The Supreme Court had specifically observed that when a writ petition is withdrawn without reserving the right to file a fresh petition, the litigant cannot later challenge the same cause in a new petition. The principle of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which deals with withdrawal and abandonment of suits, was held to apply even to writ proceedings.
The Patna High Court also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Orissa and Another vs. Laxmi Narayan Das (Dead) through Legal Representative and Others, (2023) 15 SCC 273. There, following M.J. Exporters Private Limited vs. Union of India and others, (2021) 13 SCC 543, the Supreme Court reiterated that the principles under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC, including constructive res judicata, extend to writ petitions. If a litigant withdraws a suit or writ without permission to file afresh, a new writ for the same relief “ought not to have been entertained.”
Applying these settled principles, the Division Bench held that the appellant’s second writ petition, CWJC No. 19359 of 2016, was not maintainable in law. His earlier writ CWJC No. 19237 of 2015, filed on the same dispute regarding the same quarter and dues, had been dismissed as withdrawn on 06.01.2016 without any liberty reserved. On this ground alone, the appeal against the Single Judge’s order was held to be without merit.
Despite this finding, the Court went on to examine the case on merits as well. The core factual dispute was whether the demand of Rs. 20,98,757/- as house rent/penal rent for the period 14.04.2014 to 12.05.2016 was legal.
The appellant’s main argument was founded on a notification dated 21.08.2008, issued by the then Secretary, Bihar Legislative Council. This notification provided that members of the “State Legislature Research and Training Bureau” would be entitled to honorarium, railway coupons, medical facilities, and, in addition, house accommodation in Patna, daily allowance, telephone facilities, electricity charges, stationery, and other benefits similar to those available to members of the Bihar Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council.
On this basis, the appellant claimed that, as a nominated member of the Bureau from 27.10.2014, he was entitled to continue using Quarter No. 3, Taylor Road, and that the demand for penal rent was contrary to this notification.
The State respondents, in their counter affidavit, denied this claim. They pointed out that:
- The quarter in question was in the ministerial pool and had been allotted to the appellant only in his capacity as MLA.
- He resigned as MLA on 14.03.2014, and the Bihar Legislative Assembly de-allotted Quarter No. 3 thereafter.
- As per rules, he could have retained the accommodation for only one month from resignation; beyond that, his stay was illegal.
- The quarter was allotted to Hon’ble Minister Dr. Abdul Gafoor by Office Order No. 161 dated 11.12.2015, and the appellant was repeatedly asked to vacate.
- By letter dated 21.09.2015, the Executive Engineer had specifically informed the appellant that dues of Rs. 14,14,118/- were outstanding up to 30.09.2015 and asked him to pay, failing which a “no dues certificate” could not be issued.
- After hearing the appellant, the department by letter dated 13.02.2017 confirmed that (i) his allotment had been disintegrated by the Bihar Legislative Assembly; (ii) the period 14.04.2014 to 12.05.2016 would not be regularised; and (iii) that period was treated as illegal occupancy, for which penal rent of Rs. 20,98,757/- had to be deposited.
The Division Bench carefully examined the 21.08.2008 notification. It held that the notification simply entitled a Bureau member to certain facilities such as house accommodation, daily allowance, telephone and electricity facilities “as that of an MLA or MLC.”
However, the notification did not say that a former MLA could, on his own will, continue to occupy the same specific government quarter which he had as an MLA. It also did not authorise a Bureau member to keep occupying a quarter from the ministerial pool after it had been de-allotted and re-allotted to a minister.
The Court observed that once the appellant resigned as MLA, he ought to have vacated Quarter No. 3 immediately, and if he claimed entitlement as a Bureau member under the 21.08.2008 notification, he should have formally sought a fresh and appropriate allotment in that capacity. Instead, he simply held on to the same ministerial pool quarter and attempted to “pressurize the authorities to regularise the same” even after de-allotment.
The Court termed this conduct “improper” and held that the appellant illegally occupied the quarter from 14.04.2014 to 12.05.2016. It therefore found the calculation and demand of Rs. 20,98,757/- as penal house rent fully legal and justified.
Going a step further, the Division Bench directed that the appellant must not only pay the sum of Rs. 20,98,757/- to the State Exchequer within one month of the judgment, but also pay interest at 6% per annum on this amount from 24.08.2016 (the date of the demand letter) up to the date of actual payment. The Court described this as a consequence of the appellant’s “obstinacy” in continuing to occupy the quarter illegally despite directions to vacate and pay.
Before concluding, the Court strongly criticised the practice of former public representatives and officers overstaying in government accommodations. It relied on several precedents:
- Lok Prahari v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2016) 8 SCC 389, where the Supreme Court, following S.D. Bandi v. Karnataka SRTC, (2013) 12 SCC 631, condemned unauthorized occupation of government bungalows by ex-functionaries and emphasised that such overstaying violates the rights of others who are entitled to these public resources.
- An earlier Patna High Court decision in LPA No. 1278 of 2016 (Samrath Chaudhary @ Rakesh Kumar), where it was held that a person allotted government accommodation as MLA/MLC or Minister has no vested right to keep it after ceasing to hold that office.
- The judgment of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh in Court On Its Own Motion vs. Union of Territory of J&K and others (WP(C) PIL No. 24 of 2020), which also condemned former ministers and legislators overstaying in government quarters and directed recovery of appropriate rent for unauthorized occupation.
- The Delhi High Court decision in Mahua Moitra vs. Estate Officer, Directorate of Estates & Ors. (order dated 18.01.2024 in WP(C) 777/2024 & CM Appl. 3382/2024), where it was held that government accommodation is co-terminus with the status of Member of Parliament and a person has no right to continue after that status ends, unless rules provide otherwise.
On this basis, the Patna High Court reinforced the principle that government accommodation allotted due to a public office must be vacated once that office ceases, and any illegal retention can attract penal rent.
Concluding, the Court held that the Letters Patent Appeal lacked merit. There was no ground to interfere with the Single Judge’s order dismissing the writ petition. The appeal was dismissed, and the directions to pay penal rent with interest were affirmed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for all former MLAs, MLCs, ministers and similar office-holders in Bihar who continue to live in government bungalows after their term ends.
The Patna High Court clearly states that once a person leaves office, he or she has no right to keep the government quarter allotted for that office. Any delay or refusal to vacate can lead to heavy penal rent and even interest on that amount.
The decision also sends a message to ordinary citizens. Government bungalows and quarters are public property. They are meant for whoever presently holds the post, not as permanent privileges for former holders. Overstaying in such accommodation directly affects others who are waiting for allotment.
The ruling further clarifies that if someone withdraws a writ petition without taking permission to file a fresh case, they generally cannot come back to court with another writ on the same issue. This protects the court process from repeated, overlapping cases on the same dispute.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Can a person file a second writ petition under Article 226 for the same relief after withdrawing an earlier writ petition without liberty to file afresh?
Answer: No. Applying the principles of Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC and constructive res judicata, the Patna High Court held that the second writ was not maintainable when the first writ was withdrawn unconditionally without any liberty reserved. -
Issue: Is a former MLA, later nominated to the State Legislature Research and Training Bureau, entitled to continue occupying the same government quarter allotted as an MLA, even after resignation and de-allotment?
Answer: No. The Court held that the 21.08.2008 notification only grants entitlement to facilities “as that of an MLA/MLC,” but does not permit a former MLA to retain the same specific quarter, especially one in the ministerial pool, after resignation and de-allotment. -
Issue: Was the demand of Rs. 20,98,757/- as penal rent for the period 14.04.2014 to 12.05.2016 legal?
Answer: Yes. The Court found the appellant’s occupation during that period to be illegal and upheld the demand as fully justified, further directing payment of 6% interest per annum from 24.08.2016 till payment.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots’ Associations of India and others vs. Director General of Civil Aviation and others, (2011) 5 SCC 435.
- State of Orissa and Another vs. Laxmi Narayan Das (Dead) through Legal Representative and Others, (2023) 15 SCC 273.
- M.J. Exporters Private Limited vs. Union of India and others, (2021) 13 SCC 543.
- Sarguja Transport Service vs. STAT, (1987) 1 SCC 5 (referred through M.J. Exporters in principle).
- Lok Prahari v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2016) 8 SCC 389 (with reference to S.D. Bandi v. Karnataka SRTC, (2013) 12 SCC 631).
- LPA No. 1278 of 2016, Samrath Chaudhary @ Rakesh Kumar (Patna High Court).
- Court On Its Own Motion vs. Union of Territory of J&K & Ors., WP(C) PIL No. 24 of 2020 (High Court of J&K at Srinagar).
- Mahua Moitra vs. Estate Officer, Directorate of Estates & Ors., WP(C) 777/2024 & CM Appl. 3382/2024 (Delhi High Court).
Case Details
Case Number: Letters Patent Appeal No. 459 of 2021 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 19359 of 2016
Case Title: Avanish Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Sinha
Date of Judgment: 03.04.2025
Citation: 2025 (2) PLJR 577
Advocates:
- For the Appellant: Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate
- For the State/Respondents: Mr. P. K. Shahi, Advocate General
- For Bihar Legislative Council: Mr. Aditya Prakash Sahay, Advocate
Nature of the Case: Letters Patent Appeal against dismissal of writ petition under Article 226 relating to demand of penal house rent for overstay in government accommodation.
Link to Judgment: Click here to read the full judgment of the Patna High Court
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
