1. Directorate of Estates initiates eviction of former TMC MP Mahua Moitra from her Delhi government bungalow.
2. Delhi High Court rejects stay on eviction notice, prompting action by the Directorate of Estates.
3. Moitra’s plea cited medical reasons, seeking the court’s intervention to prevent eviction after her expulsion from Trinamool Congress.
New Delhi, Jan 19: The Directorate of Estates has taken action to evict former Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra from her government bungalow in Delhi, reported an official statement.
This move follows the Delhi High Court’s decision to decline a stay on the eviction notice issued to Moitra, instructing her to vacate the premises.
The team dispatched for the eviction consists of officials from the Directorate of Estates. Moitra, who challenged the eviction notice in court, presented medical reasons, urging the high court to prevent her eviction due to health concerns following her expulsion from the Trinamool Congress.
Representing Moitra, senior advocate Brij Gupta informed the court about her recent surgical procedure and hospitalization. However, Justice Girish Kathpalia pointed out that no specific rule had been presented to the court regarding the eviction of MPs from government accommodation after their tenure as lawmakers concludes.
Also Read: Ministry of Education Introduces Guidelines for Coaching Centers, Restricts Admission for Students Under 16
The court emphasized that Moitra’s allotment of government accommodation was linked to her status as an MP, and with her expulsion, that status ceased.
The Supreme Court had not stayed her expulsion despite a hearing, leaving her without the right to continue residing in the government bungalow.
The court’s order stated, “…accordingly, under Article 226 of the Constitution, she cannot be granted protection as sought. The allotment of government accommodation to the petitioner was co-terminus with her status, which has come to an end upon her expulsion.”
Given the interconnection between the issues of Moitra’s expulsion and the extension of time to vacate the government accommodation, the court decided not to intervene under Article 226 of the Constitution at this stage.
The court dismissed the application, stating, “The application stands dismissed.”
