The Punjab and Haryana High Court has rejected an application challenging the continued occupation of a government house in Chandigarh by Tej Parkash Singh, son of Punjab’s former Chief Minister Beant Singh. The Bench made it clear that the Supreme Court’s general directions against retention of government accommodation by government servants could not be invoked to question the administration’s decision to allow him to continue in the house on security grounds.The Bench of Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor observed that the Chandigarh Administration had taken a “conscious decision” after considering the threat perception and intelligence inputs, and the case was distinguishable from those covered by the Supreme Court’s directions. Security assessment cites threats from terror outfitsThe court took note of the Chandigarh Administration’s affidavit stating that Beant Singh was “done to death in an act of terrorism” and that his family continued to face security threats. Appearing before the Bench, UT Additional Standing Counsel Abhinav Sood, along with advocate Sayyam Garg, furnished an affidavit dated October 6, stating that the House Allotment Committee had considered the continued occupation of the Sector 5 house by Tej Parkash Singh.The letter dated June 6 in the matter, among other things, referred to “recent grenade attacks and terror-related incidents in Chandigarh and the Punjab region”, the revival of extremist and radical organisations, persistent threat calls, hostile social media campaigns and intelligence inputs indicating continuing hostile intent against the family. It also flagged the “operational vulnerability” that could arise from relocation from the existing premises.The letter said the joint security committee recommended that the house was “strategically suitable and security-wise appropriate” for the family’s residence. It found the existing security deployment and infrastructure satisfactory, while recommending additional CCTV cameras and strengthened surveillance arrangements.Supreme Court directions distinguishedThe High Court observed that the Supreme Court’s directions were intended to ensure that government servants did not continue occupying government accommodation beyond retirement. It held that such general directions could not be relied upon to contend that Tej Parkash Singh could not continue in the house, particularly when the UT Administration had considered the threat perception and intelligence inputs before deciding that his continued occupation was warranted.The Bench noted that the administration had initially cancelled the allotment pursuant to the Supreme Court’s directions, but reconsidered the matter after receiving a representation from the occupant and examining intelligence inputs.Finding no merit in an application seeking enforcement of the earlier cancellation, the court rejected it after observing that the case was “clearly distinguishable” and “would not fall within clutches of the directions issued by the apex Court”. Chief Engineer asked to explain delay in repairsIn the connected public interest litigation, the High Court called upon the Chief Engineer, UT Administration, to file a personal affidavit “clearly explaining as to why requisite repairs have not been carried out” in government houses allotted to High Court employees.The Bench directed that the necessary repairs be undertaken “on priority basis” and that the matter be intimated to the court forthwith. The case has been adjourned to November 26.