Rajya Sabha suspension not related to accommodation cancellation; I am being targeted: Raghav Chadha to Delhi High Court

Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Member of Parliament (MP) Raghav Chadha told the Delhi High Court on Wednesday that he was being targetted, in the wake of the cancellation of his government-allotted accommodation in Delhi's Pandara Road..Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for Chadha and argued that several MPs, many of whom are first term MPs like Chadha, had been given accommodation above their grade, yet he was the only one being evicted.“I gave my first speech [in Rajya Sabha] the cancellation letter came. I gave my second speech, I was suspended [from Rajya Sabha]…This order [cancelling accommodation] reeks of legal malice,” Singhvi said.Singhvi contended that Chadha was being targeted selectively.“What the Vice-President grants, a Chairman of the House Committee cannot take away. What the principal grants, an agent cannot take away.”.Singhvi was arguing Chadha’s case before Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani.The AAP MP has approached the High Court challenging the Patiala House Court’s decision to vacate its order that restrained the Rajya Sabha Secretariat from evicting him from the government allotted Type-VII bungalow..In September 2022, Chadha had been allotted the bungalow at Pandara Road in Delhi. In March this year, he was told that the allotment had been cancelled as Type-VII was higher than his entitlement, and he was allotted another flat.He approached the district court seeking a permanent injunction against the cancellation of Pandara Road bungalow allotment.The Court granted him interim relief on April 18, 2023 by restraining the Rajya Sabha Secretariat from dispossessing him of the allotted accommodation. .This order was vacated by the Court on October 5, 2023 after the Rajya Sabha Secretariat filed a review application arguing that the procedure under Section 80(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) was not followed while granting Chadha interim relief, as leave to institute the suit was not granted.A suit seeking urgent relief against the government can be instituted with the leave of a court under Section 80(2) CPC without serving of mandatory two-months notice to the government. However, the government or public officer is required to be heard first.Chadha moved the High Court against this order..Today, Singhvi submitted that the trial court vacated its order only on the ground that Section 80 CPC was not complied with. He argued that jurisdictionally, ‘government’ under Section 80 CPC does not include the legislature and the term ‘government’ in the said section means only the executive arm. He further clarified that Chadha's recent suspension from the Rajya Sabha has nothing to do with cancellation of his accommodation..Opposing the plea, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Vikramjit Banerjee said that Chadha cannot claim negative equality and the entire argument regarding Section 80 CPC was raised only at the time of review. "There is not a whisper in the plaint," Banerjee said, adding that the lower court has rightly invoked the doctrine of approbation and reprobation.Banerjee also submitted that Section 2(17) of the CPC defines public officer as "every officer in the service or pay of the Government, or remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty"."This definition goes beyond the government," he said, pointing out that the Rajya Sabha Secretariat, through its Secretary General, was the defendant in the suit.Banerjee also argued that if it were held that the Rajya Sabha Secretariat does not fall under definition of "public officer" under Section 80 CPC, it would have "greater repercussions" on the law in future..After hearing Banerjee's arguments, the Court adjourned the matter to Thursday for rejoinder submissions by Singhvi.