Public property allotments and executive instructions cannot override statutory limits on ministerial residence and lawful use.

A public interest writ was maintainable because the petitioner was a public-spirited body challenging misuse of government accommodation and public funds, and the petition was therefore held to have locus standi. The governing statute limited a Minister's entitlement to official residence to the term of office and fifteen days thereafter; the 1997 residence allotment rules were only executive instructions and were invalid to the extent they extended life-long residence to former Chief Ministers. Allotments of government bungalows to private trusts or organisations without statutory authority and adequate consideration were unlawful, and the unauthorized occupants and recipients were directed to vacate and account for occupation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition in public interest was maintainable and the petitioner had locus standi to challenge the impugned allotment policy. (ii) Whether the Ex-Chief Ministers Residence Allotment Rules, 1997 and the consequential allotments of government bungalows to former Chief Ministers and private trusts were valid in law.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition in public interest was maintainable and the petitioner had locus standi to challenge the impugned allotment policy.

Analysis: The petitioner society was shown to be a public-spirited body comprising retired civil servants and others with a genuine concern about misuse of public accommodation and strain on the State exchequer. The challenge was directed to a matter of public administration affecting government property and was not shown to be motivated by any personal grievance. In such a situation, a public interest petition was held to be maintainable.

Conclusion: The petitioner had locus standi and the writ petition was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the Ex-Chief Ministers Residence Allotment Rules, 1997 and the consequential allotments of government bungalows to former Chief Ministers and private trusts were valid in law.

Analysis: The Court held that the term and perquisites of Ministers, including the Chief Minister, were governed by the Uttar Pradesh Ministers (Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1981, which entitled a Minister to official residence only during the term of office and for fifteen days thereafter. The 1997 Rules were merely executive instructions and could not override the statutory scheme. The Rules, by permitting residence for life to former Chief Ministers, were inconsistent with the Act and therefore invalid. The Court also held that allotment of government bungalows to private trusts or organisations without a statutory basis and without adequate consideration was impermissible because public property cannot be frittered away in favour of private parties.

Conclusion: The 1997 Rules were invalid to the extent they conflicted with the 1981 Act, and the disputed bungalow allotments were unlawful.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded, the impugned policy could not stand against the governing statute, and the unauthorised occupants and recipients of unsupported allotments were directed to vacate and account for the occupation.

Ratio Decidendi: Executive instructions cannot confer a benefit on former Ministers beyond the period and conditions fixed by the governing statute, and public property cannot be allotted to private persons or bodies without statutory authority and adequate consideration.

---