UTTARAKHAND EX-CM CASE

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Civil Original Jurisdiction

Amended Writ Petition No. 90 of 2010(P.I.L.)

Under Article 226 of Constitution of India

Rural Litigation and Entitlement
Kendra(RLEK) ………………………..Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and five
Others ………………………..Respondent
The petitioner filed this petition through its chairperson alleging that govt. has spent Rs.
92869973(Nine Crore Twenty Eight Lakh Sixty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy
Three Only) until 2010 in providing various facilities to all ex-chief ministers of state unlawfully
without any legislative sanction. State government is spreading crores of rupees in name of
personnel management of ex-CM for their whole life on the other hand every citizen of this poor
state is reeling under extensive burden of debt. the facilities  are provided on the basis of office
memo dated 15 February 2002 and order dated 27 November 2001 which never received
sanction from Council of Ministers in state and also they were not passed in compliance of
Article 166 and 167 of Constitution of India therefore they are not a valid Government orders.
When the inquiry goes under Right to Information Act about validity of orders dated 27
November 2001 by the State Estate Department, the petitioner was replied to ask the information
from Gopan (secrecy) Department. The department replied that order dated 27 November 2001
either by Council of Ministers or by State legislature denoting that the order were illegally
passed in utter disregard to either legislature denoting that the orders was illegally passed in utter
disregard to either legislative or executive powers of State as per Part VI of Constitution of India,
hence void ab initio. While enjoying the facilities by the virtue of being ex-chief ministers the
calculation done by the petitioner included the period when respondent no. 2, 3, 4 were demitted
from their respected offices.
According to petitioner the facilities received from State Government which was enjoyed by the
Respondent No.2 are illegal because all the facilities are received till the end of their term and
total expenditure of facilities is 89, 68, 133, So have Respondent No. 3 having expenditure of 41,
24, 481 and Respondent No. 4 having expenditure of 1,14,79,662. On public exchequer these
types of facilities becomes burden. This seems to be total wastage of money in front of the
natural calamity which was struck last year in UTTRAKHAND. Even after owing a house
Respondent No.5 still held the government property for his own personal use. Before demitting
His respected office of CM. Respondent No. 6 allotted BIJAPUR guest house for himself