HC-OMAR 2 LAST

The high court had on July 12 given protection to them The high court had on July 12 given protection to themagainst eviction. The Jammu and Kashmir government opposed Payal’s stay inthe bungalow, saying it was faced with an extremely piquantsituation as it does not have an appropriate accommodation tohouse the Chief Minister in Delhi befitting her position andsecurity imperatives. Meanwhile, Payal has filed an application seeking perjuryproceedings against a Central government official for filing afalse affidavit before the court that she and her children arenot central government protectees. In their plea, Payal and her children have claimed thatthe Centre, through a letter dated September 9, 2015, allottedthe bungalow to the state of Jammu and Kashmir as the ChiefMinister’s residence with retrospective effect from August 11,2009, without following the due process of law which was thusillegal. They contended that the website of the Department ofHospitality and Protocol of Government of Jammu and Kashmirshows that the residence of Chief Minister of the state was5, Prithviraj Road. Their petition filed through advocate Amit Khemka,claimed that they moved high court as Omar Abdullah in hisresponse to the estate officer’s show cause notice had said hewas no longer in occupation of the premises and, hence theauthority was free to take over the premises. The petitioners, including the couple’s two children,have sought parity with Priyanka Gandhi, Subramanian Swamy andseveral others who have been granted government accommodationon security grounds. The petitioners have contended that the eviction orderwas passed without allowing them to lead evidence and withoutgranting any personal hearing to them. As per the eviction order, the petitioners were given 15days to vacate the premises. Payal, in her plea, said she has a flat in the city, butit would be "totally insufficient for making elaboratesecurity arrangements for their protection" as there wereother flats in the same building. PTI PPS HMP AGDV