JUDGMENT : AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J. 1. The Preamble to the Constitution is a declaration by the people of India that they have resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic Republic. The equality of status and opportunities is guaranteed and laws inconsistent with and in derogation of the fundamental rights shall be to that extent void. As to what form of Republic as envisaged in our Constitution has been explained by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Janardan Singh Vs. State of Bihar, (2011) 2 PLJR 28 , where our Court has recognized the authority of “We the People of India” in the following words in paragraph 13 of the report:- “13. The preamble of the Constitution of India declares India a “Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic, securing for its citizens justice-social, economic and political; liberty-of thought, expression, belief; faith and worship; equality-of status and of opportunity, besides promoting among people of India fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation”. The words ‘democratic republic’ may sometimes cause confusion as to what does it really mean because a republic could never be said to be a democracy in the real sense of the term. A republic is a system of Government which has the participation of the citizens who could be governed in electing persons who have lastly to govern them. Thus, it may appear a system of governance by representatives of the citizens of the republic except a monarch. But, it, ultimately, has a single head of State who rules the governed. Directly or indirectly, the people’s participation in the republic system of Government is to seek approval, consent or acclaim to proposed policies of the person who was likely to govern the citizens, as we find it in the United States of America. Democracy, in any of its forms, could not be said to be akin to a republic. Democracy which was ushered in by our Constitution, in sum and substance, speaks of a system of Government, which is wholly a representative democracy, where the powers of the majority are exercised within the framework of constitutional restraints designed to guarantee the citizens in the enjoyment of certain individual or collective rights. Democracy which was ushered in by our Constitution, in sum and substance, speaks of a system of Government, which is wholly a representative democracy, where the powers of the majority are exercised within the framework of constitutional restraints designed to guarantee the citizens in the enjoyment of certain individual or collective rights. The individual or collective rights which have been created or guaranteed by our Constitution to the people of India are very much enlisted by the preamble and that gets further adumbrated in Part III. Those special features distinguish our democratic republic from the other republic. In fact, the republican feature of one person ruling the people is reflected by our Constitution by recognizing the ‘People of India’ as the supreme ruler. But again it hardly requires to be pointed out that right or liberties guaranteed by the Constitution are also not immune, they may be abridged, suspended or even snatched.” The element of arbitrariness in legislations repulsive to norms under Part-III of the Constitution through any State action is open to challenge and as per the law declared by the Apex Court in the case of Shayara Bano Vs. Union of India reported in, (2017) 9 SCC 1 . This test can be applied to invalidate a legislation through judicial review. Whether the issue raised in this Public Interest Litigation conforms to the Socialist and Democratic norms of this Republic or not has been taken up by us suo moto to be answered for determining the rights and privileges conferred on the Ex-Chief Ministers to retain an official Government Bungalow/Premises allotted by the State Government for their life free of all charges and with unbounded limits of maintenance expenditure. 2. 2. It is in this background that the provisions of the Bihar Special Security Group Act, 2000 as amended by Bihar Act No.10 of 2010 relating to a life time allotment of Government premises for residential purposes to Ex-Chief Ministers, who have already demitted office came to the notice of this Court as manifested in the Cabinet Resolution dated 2nd of July, 2014, the Resolution of the Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar, dated 30.12.2014, the Office Memorandum of the Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar dated 22nd March, 2016 followed by the Notification of the same Department dated 25th May, 2018, the Office Memorandum dated 7th January, 2019 and 22nd January, 2019, that have been brought on record through the affidavit of the respondent-State of Bihar. The allotments have been laid to scrutiny in this Public Interest Litigation as being not in conformity with law and the pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of Lok Prahari through General Secretary Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in, (2018) 6 SCC 1 . 3. A Division Bench presided over by us while hearing Letters Patent Appeal No.1543 of 2018 (Tejashwi Prasad Yadav Versus The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in, 2019 1 PLJR 622) relating to the claim of retention of an official Bungalow by the leader of the opposition of the Bihar Legislative Assembly noticed the Office Memorandum of the Building Construction Department dated 22nd March, 2016 and called upon the office to register a Public Interest Litigation under the note dated 7th January, 2019. Accordingly, this Public Interest Litigation was taken up on 8th January, 2019 and a detailed order was passed by us as to why suo motu proceedings deserve to be registered in order to examine the validity of the State action relating to allotment of Government Bungalows/Premises to Ex-Chief Ministers in the State of Bihar at Government expense for their life time and with unlimited finances available for maintaining them. The order passed on 8th January, 2019 is extracted here in under:- “This Public Interest Litigation has been registered in the light of the suo motu notice taken under the order dated 7th January, 2019 passed on the administrative side, which is extracted here in under:- “A Division Bench presided over by me along with Hon’ble Justice Smt. Anjana Mishra while hearing L.P.A. No. 1543 of 2018 came across an office memorandum dated 22nd March, 2016 of the Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar in the matter of a lifetime allotment of Bungalows to former Chief Ministers of the State of Bihar. The said office memorandum has been filed along with a counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-State in the said Letters Patent Appeal. A Photostat copy of the same is enclosed herewith. The said office memorandum spells out that former Chief Ministers of Bihar would be entitled to retain ear-marked Bungalows referred to therein fully furnished for their lifetime and with all facilities including maintenance that shall be looked after by the State Government without any financial limits. The office memorandum also recites that this decision was being taken by the Government in special circumstances keeping in view that security concerns have to be reviewed when a Chief Minister demits office and has also to be provided facilities. The said office memorandum appears to be prima facie against public policy and public interest as it practically creates a lifetime occupancy to public property at the unlimited cost of public exchequer in the name of security and other facilities that are available to former Chief Ministers. Such facilities do not appear to be Constitutionally permissible and the provisions of the Bihar Special Security Force (Amendment) Act, 2010 do not in any way create any such obligation of providing such facilities for lifetime and with no limit on finances and expenses. The said office memorandum is at best an executive instruction and it appears to transgress the limits of allotment as prescribed under Act No. 15 of the Bihar Ministers’ (Salary and Allowances), Act, 2006 and Act No. 16 of the Bihar Legislative Assembly (Salary, Allowances and Pension of Members) Act, 2006 as well as the rules framed there under. The said office memorandum is at best an executive instruction and it appears to transgress the limits of allotment as prescribed under Act No. 15 of the Bihar Ministers’ (Salary and Allowances), Act, 2006 and Act No. 16 of the Bihar Legislative Assembly (Salary, Allowances and Pension of Members) Act, 2006 as well as the rules framed there under. The said Act and the rules nowhere permit any such lifetime allotment of Bungalows to former Chief Ministers and rather limit the allotment only to the tenure during which a person is either a Minister or a person entitled for allotment under the time limit prescribed under the said Act and the Rules. The time limit having been prescribed in the Act and the Rules, the extension of allotment with lifetime occupancy to former Chief Ministers, therefore, is ultra vires the aforesaid provisions. This, therefore, requires a scrutiny by way of a judicial review in public interest as it directly involves public exchequer and amounts to a permanent creation of occupancy rights with unlimited maintenance expenditure in favour of elected representatives who cease to hold office on the expiry of their tenure or otherwise. The very concept of retention of lifetime public premises has been deprecated by the Apex Court in the case of Lok Prahari Through General Secretary Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Reported in, (2018) 6 SCC 1 and such provisions have been struck down as ultra vires by the Apex Court. The matter, therefore, deserves to be dealt with on the judicial side as a Public Interest Litigation for which notices will have to be issued to the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna, Principal Secretary, Building Construction Department, Bihar, Patna, the Estate Officer, Building Construction Department, Bihar, Patna, the District Magistrate, Patna and to the allotees, namely, Shri Satish Prasad Singh, allotted House No. 33/A, Hardinge Road, Dr. Jagannath Mishra, allotted House No. 41, Kranti Marg (Hardinge Road, Patna), Shri Lalu Prasad, allotted House No. 10 Circular Road, Smt. Rabri Devi, allotted House No. 10, Circular Road, Shri Nitish Kumar, allotted House No. 7, Circular Road and Shri Jitan Ram Manjhi, allotted House No. 12M, Strand Road. Jagannath Mishra, allotted House No. 41, Kranti Marg (Hardinge Road, Patna), Shri Lalu Prasad, allotted House No. 10 Circular Road, Smt. Rabri Devi, allotted House No. 10, Circular Road, Shri Nitish Kumar, allotted House No. 7, Circular Road and Shri Jitan Ram Manjhi, allotted House No. 12M, Strand Road. Let this, therefore, be registered as a Public Interest Litigation and be placed before the Public Interest Litigation Bench for passing of appropriate orders captioned as “In Re Life Time Allotment of Bungalows to Former Chief Ministers of the State of Bihar with Unlimited Financial Maintenance Facilities”. The papers be placed accordingly before the appropriate Bench. The learned Advocate General Shri Lalit Kishore has put in appearance and has pointed out that in view of the second proviso to Section 2 of the Bihar Special Security Force (Amendment) Act, 2010 a former Chief Minister would be eligible for the allotment of a house free of expenses in Patna Urban Area at a secured place and, therefore, so long as the said provision exists it cannot be said that the executive instruction issued on 22nd March, 2016 is invalid or ultra vires either the provision of any Act or even violative of the Constitutional provisions. He, therefore, submits that the issue raised in the Public Interest Litigation has to be tested on the anvil of the said provision to ascertain as to whether the facility extended for lifetime occupation of a Bungalow with no limit on the financial implications relating to the maintenance of the Bungalow would be permissible or not? In order to appreciate the aforesaid arguments advanced, we may put on record that the learned Advocate General is correct in his submission that the source of authority for such allotment of Bungalow to former Chief Ministers is available in terms of Section 2 of the 2010 Amendment Act and, therefore, it is the vires of the said provision which will have to be tested in order to further ascertain as to whether the notification dated 22nd March, 2016 would be legally and Constitutionally valid or not. Prima facie, we find that the language of the second proviso to Section 2 of the 2010 Amendment Act simply recites that irrespective of the status of a person who has been earlier a Chief Minister of the State, the said person would be eligible for allotment of an official Bungalow free of expenses. Prima facie, we find that the language of the second proviso to Section 2 of the 2010 Amendment Act simply recites that irrespective of the status of a person who has been earlier a Chief Minister of the State, the said person would be eligible for allotment of an official Bungalow free of expenses. The said proviso does not indicate that it will be a lifetime allotment and that there would be no financial limit in relation to the maintenance facilities of the said Bungalow. While examining the aforesaid provision, one has to keep in mind that Act No. 15 and Act No. 16 of 2006 relating to the Ministers and the Members of the Legislative Assembly do not make any such prescription or carve out any such exception in relation to former Chief Ministers and, therefore, the question of extending any such benefit to former Chief Ministers under the aforesaid Acts does not arise. It is, therefore, evident that the source of such eligibility for allotment emanates from the provisions of Section 2 of the 2010 Amendment Act. The question, therefore, is as to whether the second proviso to Section 2 (i) of the Amendment Act 2010 itself is Constitutionally valid or otherwise violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. For this, a necessary reference, therefore, has to be made to the pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of Lok Prahari through its General Secretary Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in, (2018) 6 SCC 1 . A perusal of Paragraph 5 and Paragraph 10 of the said judgment would indicate the issues that were raised in the said judgment that are extracted here in under for ready reference:- “Section 4 of the 1981 Act, as originally enacted and as amended in the year 2016 by the 2016 Amendment, is in the following terms: Section 4 of the Act, as originally enacted Section 4 of the Act, as amended in the year 2016 by 2016 Amendment (U.P. Act 22 of 2016) “4. Residence - (1) Each Minister shall be entitled without payment of any rent to the use throughout the term of his office and for a period of fifteen days thereafter, of a residence at Lucknow which shall be furnished and maintained at public expenses at the prescribed scale. “4. Residence - (1) Each Minister shall be entitled without payment of any rent to the use throughout the term of his office and for a period of fifteen days thereafter, of a residence at Lucknow which shall be furnished and maintained at public expenses at the prescribed scale. “4. Amendment of Section 4.- For Section 4 of the principal Act, the following sections shall be substituted, namely: (2) Where a Minister has not been provided with a residence in accordance with sub-section (1), or does not avail of the benefit of the said subsection, he shall be entitled to a compensatory allowance at the rate of- 4. (1) The Chief Minister and each Minister shall be entitled, without payment of any rent to the use, throughout the term of his office and for a period of fifteen days thereafter, of a residence at Lucknow which shall be furnished and maintained at public expense at the prescribed scale. (a) three hundred rupees per month in the case of Deputy Minister. (2) Where the Chief Minister or a Minister has not been provided with a residence in accordance with sub-section (1) or does not avail of the benefit of the said sub-section, he shall be entitled to a compensatory allowance at the rate of:- (b) five hundred rupees per month in any other case.” (a) ten thousand rupees per month in the case of the Chief Minister, a Minister, a Minister of State (Independent Charge) and a Minister of State. (b) eight thousand rupees per month in the case of a Deputy Ministers. (3) A government residence shall be allotted to a former Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, at his/her request, for his/her lifetime, on payment of such rent as may be determined from time to time by the Estate Department of the State Government.” 10. (b) eight thousand rupees per month in the case of a Deputy Ministers. (3) A government residence shall be allotted to a former Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, at his/her request, for his/her lifetime, on payment of such rent as may be determined from time to time by the Estate Department of the State Government.” 10. Having noted the salient features of the provisions of the 1981 Act, the question that arises for determination in the present proceedings may be summarised as follows: “Whether retention of official accommodation by the functionaries mentioned in Section 4(3) of the 1981 Act after they had demitted office violates the equality clause guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution of India.” The Supreme Court while proceeding to test the issues also took notice of the fact that this issue needs to be addressed by all States throughout the country and it did take notice that the State of Bihar was duly represented before the Court in the said case as indicated in Paragraph 12 of the said judgment which is extracted here in under:- “12. Though the issue in the present proceeding is strictly confined to the provisions of the 1981 Act, having regard to the fact that there may be similar/pari materia provisions in force in different States/Union Territories and also in the Union we had thought it proper to inform, through the learned Amicus Curiae, the law officers of the Union and all the States/Union Territories of the pendency of the present writ petition and the issues arising therein. Pursuant thereto, the responses of the Union and the States of Assam, Bihar, Tamil Nadu and Odisha have been received. Shri Aman Lekhi, learned ASG has submitted that the government accommodation is provided to former Presidents, Vice Presidents, Prime Ministers of the country. The issue had come up for consideration in this Court in Shiv Sagar Tiwari V. Union of India, (1997) 1 SCC 444 wherein this Court has approved the action taken in the matter of provision of official accommodation to the aforesaid dignitaries under the extant Rules in the following manner: (SCC p. 468, para 72) “72. The issue had come up for consideration in this Court in Shiv Sagar Tiwari V. Union of India, (1997) 1 SCC 444 wherein this Court has approved the action taken in the matter of provision of official accommodation to the aforesaid dignitaries under the extant Rules in the following manner: (SCC p. 468, para 72) “72. Keeping in view the very high constitutional position occupied by the President, Vice President and Prime Minister, we feel no difficulty in stating that they should be accommodated in government premises after demitting of office by them, so that problem of suitable residence does not trouble them in the evening of life. What should be the terms of the same is a matter to be decided by the Government.” The Supreme Court also took notice of the fact that such a provision did exist under executive instructions in the State of Bihar which is indicated in Paragraph 13, extracted here in under:- “13. Insofar as the States of Tamil Nadu and Odisha are concerned, it is clear from the communications received from the Advocates General of the said States by the office of the learned Amicus Curiae Shri Gopal Subramanium that no provision for official accommodation to former Chief Ministers has been made by the said two States whereas in the case of the States of Bihar and Assam such provision has been made by executive instructions issued by the State under Article 162 of the Constitution of India.” It appears that the provisions of the Amendment Act, 2010 were either not brought to the notice of the Apex Court or had escaped the notice for one reason or the other. Nonetheless, taking note of the enactment that was under challenge before the Apex Court relating to the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Apex Court observed that it was the duty of the Court to take urgent action to prevent any such invalidity perpetuating in future. In Paragraphs 28, 29 and 30 of the said report in the case of Lok Prahari (supra) the Supreme Court also reiterated the test which was to be considered in order to uphold or otherwise the validity of any such State action on the principles of manifest arbitrariness and while doing so, it referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shayara Bano Vs. Union of India reported in, (2017) 9 SCC 1 and held that this test can be applied to invalidate legislation as well which was subject to judicial review. Paragraph 36 of the said report, therefore, categorically concludes that judicial review was permissible and in the said decision the Apex Court further held that the Legislative Act which was under challenge before the Apex Court relating to the State of Uttar Pradesh that was on similar lines as involved herein was a clear act of legislative overreach in order to nullify the effect of the earlier Supreme Court decision referred to therein. The Apex Court thereafter enunciated the testing of the relevant provisions on the anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and held that such allocation of Bungalows on a lifetime basis would amount to create a separate class and also observed that a former Chief Minister after demitting office is also a common citizen. Paragraphs 38 and 39 of the report are illustrative of the aforesaid ratio decidendi of the Apex Court which is gainfully extracted here in under:- “38. Natural resources, public lands and the public goods like government bungalows/official residence are public property that belongs to the people of the country. The “Doctrine of Equality” which emerges from the concepts of justice, fairness must guide the State in the distribution/allocation of the same. The Chief Minister, once he/she demits the office, is on a par with the common citizen, though by virtue of the office held, he/she may be entitled to security and other protocols. But allotment of government bungalow, to be occupied during his/her lifetime, would not be guided by the constitutional principle of equality. 39. Undoubtedly, Section 4(3) of the 1981 Act would have the effect of creating a separate class of citizens for conferment of benefits by way of distribution of public property on the basis of the previous public office held by them. Once such persons demit the public office earlier held by them there is nothing to distinguish them from the common man. The public office held by them becomes a matter of history and, therefore, cannot form the basis of a reasonable classification to categorise previous holders of public office as a special category of person entitled to the benefit of special privileges. The test of reasonable classification, therefore, has to fail. The public office held by them becomes a matter of history and, therefore, cannot form the basis of a reasonable classification to categorise previous holders of public office as a special category of person entitled to the benefit of special privileges. The test of reasonable classification, therefore, has to fail. Not only that the legislation i.e., Section 4(3) of the 1981 Act recognising former holders of public office as a special class of citizens, viewed in the aforesaid context, would appear to be arbitrary and discriminatory thereby violating the equality clause. It is a legislative exercise based on irrelevant and legally unacceptable considerations, unsupported by any constitutional sanctity.” If the aforesaid tests laid down by the Apex Court are taken into consideration then the second proviso to Section 2(i) of the 2010 Amendment Act for allotting a Bungalow to a former Chief Minister free of expenses may not stand the scrutiny of the said law laid down by the Apex Court, more so, the prescription being defined under the notification dated 22nd March, 2016 which provides for a lifetime allotment with unlimited financial maintenance facilities is clearly in teeth of the law propounded by the Apex Court nor are such provisions decipherable or deducible under the proviso to Section 2(i) of the 2010 Amendment Act. In our opinion, therefore, prima facie the said proviso of the 2010 Amendment Act is clearly ultra vires the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and so is the notification dated 22nd March, 2010. We, therefore, request the learned Advocate General for the State of Bihar to file an appropriate affidavit on behalf of the State Government through the Chief Secretary calling upon him to explain as to why the second proviso to Section 2(i) of the 2010 Amendment Act be not struck down as ultra vires to Article 14 of the Constitution of India and as to why the notification dated 22nd March, 2016 be also not declared as such keeping in view the pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of Lok Prahari (supra). We also issue notice to all the allottees under the notification dated 22nd March, 2016 calling upon them to file a response in the light of what has been stated above by the next date fixed. We also issue notice to all the allottees under the notification dated 22nd March, 2016 calling upon them to file a response in the light of what has been stated above by the next date fixed. While filing the affidavits, the State of Bihar as well as the noticees shall also explain that if the issue is of security under the Bihar Special Security Force Act, as amended in 2010, then why cannot such security be provided to such former Chief Ministers who have their private residence within the city of Patna itself and why should they be not debarred from any such allotment in future. As prayed by the learned Advocate General, let the matter come up after four weeks on 11th of February, 2019.” 4. Six Ex-Chief Ministers, including the present Chief Minister (who has also served as a Chief Minister previously), who were allotted the premises under the said category of Ex-Chief Ministers, were served with notices, where after the matter was taken up on 11th February, 2019 when we passed the following order:- “Notices were issued on 8th January, 2019. In spite of service of notice, no response has come forward on behalf of Shri S. P. Singh. Notices have also been served on the other respondents and they are represented by their respective counsel. Shri Abhinav Shrivastava has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of Smt. Rabri Devi and also submits that his appearance may also be recorded in relation to Shri Lalu Prasad as the same house number under allotment is the subject matter of dispute, namely, House No.10 Circular Road, to both these persons. Shri Dinu Kumar and three other counsel have filed their vakalatnama on behalf of Shri Jitan Ram Manjhi. Shri Nityanand Jha, Shri Rajani Kant Mishra and Shri Suresh Mishra have filed their response on behalf of Shri Jagannath Mishra. The learned Advocate General has filed his affidavit on behalf of the State of Bihar and he points out that in view of the memorandum dated 7th of January, 2019, it is not necessary for the present Chief Minister Shri Nitish Kumar, who is also one of the allottees, to now file a response as the said memorandum clearly indicates the surrender of ‘07 Circular Road’ which has now been earmarked for being occupied by the Chief Secretary of the State of Bihar. We have perused the affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Bihar and have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective noticees aforesaid. We have also heard Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, who has filed an I.A. No. 01 of 2019. Put up for delivery of judgment on 19th February, 2019.” 5. Sri Lalit Kishore, the learned Advocate General, Bihar, with the aid of the counter affidavit on behalf of the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, sworn by Sri Girish Mohan Thakur, Under Secretary, Home Department (Police Branch) advanced his submissions contending that the allotment of the Premises No.7, Circular Road, in favour of the present Chief Minister Shri Nitish Kumar on 25th May, 2018 in the category of an Ex-Chief Minister has been modified vide an Office Memorandum dated 7th January, 2019, whereby the allotment of the said premises in favour of Shri Nitish Kumar has been rescinded and has been modified by allotting the said premises as the official residence of Chief Secretary of the Government of Bihar. It was, however, clarified in the said Office Memorandum that since the official residence of the Chief Minister, 1, Anne Marg, was under repair and renovation, the premises of 7, Circular Road would be vacated as soon as the said official residence is available to the Chief Minister and simultaneously, the Chief Secretary will, for the time being, run his Camp Office at No.2, Circular Road. This was followed by another Office Memorandum dated 22nd January, 2019 whereby it was notified that the Chief Minister has now occupied his official residence of 1, Anne Marg and therefore, henceforth, the premises of 7, Circular Road stands allotted to Shri Deepak Kumar, the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar. 6. In view of these developments, it is urged by the learned Advocate General that the present Chief Minister is no longer in the occupation of the Bungalow allotted to him as an ExChief Minister, namely, 7, Circular Road, which now stands allotted to the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar and hence there is no occasion now for the present Chief Minister Shri Nitish Kumar to further file any response in respect of the allotment of the premises 7, Circular Road in the capacity of an Ex-Chief Minister. 7. 7. The learned Advocate General, however, while advancing his submission contended that the power to make such allotments in relation to Ex-Chief Ministers was an outcome of the introduction of a statutory provision through the amendment in the 2000 Act that was published in the Gazette on 13th April, 2010. The said amendment in the year 2010 introduced the provision of allotment of premises to an Ex-Chief Minister in the urban area of Patna free of charges in terms of Section 4 of Act No.8 of 2000. 8. Section 4 as it stood when enacted before amendment is extracted here in under:- “4. Constitution of the Group.- (1) There shall be an armed force of the State Called the Special Security Group for providing proximate security to persons specified in sub-section (2) of this section. (2) The Special Security Group shall provide proximate security to:- (a) The Chief Minister. (b) Members of the immediate family of the Chief Minister. (c) Ex-Chief Ministers for a period of 5 years after they have demitted Office, or such further period as notified from time to time by State Government. (3) Subject to the Provisions of this Act, the Group shall be constituted in such manner as may be prescribed and the terms and conditions of service of the members of the Group shall be such as may be prescribed. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, any person or any member of the police force of the State may be appointed to this group by the State Government by a general specific order and for such period as may be specified in such order and the person so appointed shall during the period of his appointment be deemed to be a member of the group, and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply to such person or member.” 9. The amendment which was brought about through the Bihar Special Security Group Amendment Act, 2010 is extracted here in under in its entirety:- ^^fcgkj fo'ks"k lqj{kk ny ¼la'kks/ku½ vf/kfu;e] 2010 ¼fcgkj fo/kku eaMy }kjk ikfjr½ ÁLrkouk %& tcfd eq[;ea=h iwoZ eaf=;ksa ,oa muds vO;ofgr ikfjokfjd lnL;ksa dks leqfpr lqj{kk Ánku djus ds fopkj ls fcgkj fo'ks"k lqj{kk ny vf/kfu;e] 2000 ds vUrxZr fo'ks"k lqj{kk ny eqgS;k djk;h tkrh gSA tcfd mxzokfn;ksa ,oa vkardoknh laxBuksa ls vuqHkwr [krjksa dks /;kuxr j[krs gq, ;g mfpr le>k x;k gS fd eq[;ea=h ,oa iwoZ eq[;eaf=;ksa dks leqfpr lqj{kk Ánku dh tk;A vr,o fcgkj fo'ks"k lqj{kk ny vf/kfu;e 2000 ¼fcgkj vf/kfu;e 8] 2000½ esa la'kks/ku vko';d gks x;k gSA Hkkjr x.kjkT; ds bdlBosa o"kZ esa fcgkj jkT; fo/kku eaMy }kjk fuEufyf[kr :i esa ;g vf/kfu;fer gks %& 1- laf{kIr uke] foLrkj vkSj ÁkjaHk & ¼1½ ;g vf/kfu;e] fcgkj fo'ks"k lqj{kk ny ¼la'kks/ku½ vf/kfu;e] 2010 dgk tk ldsxkA ¼2½ bldk foLrkj lEiw.kZ fcgkj jkT; esa gksxkA ¼3½ ;g rqjUr Áo`Rr gksxkA 2- fcgkj vf/kfu;e 8] 2000 dh /kkjk 4 dk la'kks/ku & fcgkj fo'ks"k lqj{kk ny vf/kfu;e 2000 dh /kkjk 4 esa ¼1½ mi/kkjk ¼2½ dks fuEufyf[kr :i esa ÁfrLFkkfir fd;k tk;sxk] ;Fkk %& ¼2½ fo'ks"k lqj{kk ny vklUu lqj{kk Ánku djsxk %& ¼d½ eq[;ea=hA ¼[k½ eq[;ea=h ds vO;ofgr ikfjokfjd lnL;ksaA ¼x½ iwoZ eq[;eaf=;ksa dks in R;kx dh frfFk ls ikap o"kksZ dh vof/k ds fy,A ijarq iwoZ eq[;ea=h ikap o"kZ dh vof/k lekfIr ds i'pkr~ mfpr lqj{kk gsrq i;kZIr lqj{kkdfeZ;ksa }kjk muds vkokl ,oa jkT; ds vUrxZr ;k=k Hkze.k ds nkSjku] cqysVÁqQ okgu bR;kfn ds ik= gksxsa tSlk fd jkT; ljdkj }kjk fofgr fu;eksa ds vuqlkj vFkok bl laca/k esa dksbZ vkns'k fuxZr fd;k tk;sxkA ijarq ;g vkSj fd inkof/k dks /;ku esa j[ks fcuk iwoZ eq[;ea=hx.k iVuk Hkkgjh {ks= ds vUrxZr lqjf{kr {ks= esa fu%'kqYd ljdkjh vkokl ds ik= Hkh gksxsaA ¼2½ ,d ubZ mi/kkjk&¼3½ dks fuEufyf[kr :i ls var%LFkkfir fd;k tk;sxk rFkk fo|eku mi/kkjk ¼3½ ,oa ¼4½ mi/kkjk ¼5½ ds :i esa Øeafdr fd;k tk;sxk %& ¼3½ ;fn dksbZ iwoZ eq[;ea=h ds varjax ikfjokfjd lnL; Hkh iwoZ eq[;ea=h jgs gksa rks mi/kkjk ¼2½ dh vkoklh; lqj{kk xkMZ Ánku dh tkus okyh lqfo/kkvksa dks nksgjk;k ugha tk ldsxkA 13 vÁSy 2010 la[;k ,yŒthŒ&1&11@2010@ystŒ 121&fcgkj fo/kku eaMy }kjk ;Fkk ikfjr vkSj jkT;iky }kjk fnukad 8 vÁSy 2010 dks vuqer fcgkj fo'ks"k lqj{kk ny ¼la'kks/ku½ vf/kfu;e] 2010 dk fuEufyf[kr vaxzsth vuqokn fcgkj&jkTiky ds Ákf/kdkj ls blds }kjk Ádkf'kr fd;k tkrk gS] ftls Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 348 ds [kaM ¼3½ ds v/khu mDr vf/kfu;e dk vaxzsth Hkk"kk esa Ákf/kd`r ikB le>k tk;sxk %& fcgkj&jkTiky ds vkns'k ls] jktsUæ dqekj feJ] ljdkj ds lfpoA** 10. The newly amended Section quoted above introduced two provisos and a new sub-section (3). The two provisos became part of Section 4(2) (i) and the new sub-section was introduced as Section 4(2) (ii). Both these provisions have been highlighted here in above. 11. The newly amended Section quoted above introduced two provisos and a new sub-section (3). The two provisos became part of Section 4(2) (i) and the new sub-section was introduced as Section 4(2) (ii). Both these provisions have been highlighted here in above. 11. The learned Advocate General contends that it is in exercise of such powers under the 2010 Amendment Act that a Resolution was passed by the Cabinet on 2nd July, 2014 extracted here in under: ^^fcgkj ljdkj eaf=eaMy lfpoky; foHkkx ^^ladYi** ladYi la[;k 3@lhŒ,lŒ@,eŒ fofo/k&10@2014@iVuk&15] fnukad-----------2014 fo"k; %& ekuuh; iwoZ eq[;eaf=;ksa dks vfrfjDr lqfo/kk miyC/k djkus ds lEcU/k esaA ekuuh; iwoZ eq[;eaf=;ksa }kjk vius in /kkj.k ds nkSjku cgqr lkjh laLFkkvksa@O;fDr;ksa ds lkFk lEidZ esa jguk iM+rk gS rFkk cgqr lkjs lkoZtfud nkf;Roksa dks fuokZg djuk iM+rk gS tks muds in R;kx ds mijkar lekIr ugha gks tkrs gSA 2- vr% mDr nkf;Roksa ds lE;d fuogZu dks n`f"ViFk esa j[krs gq, iwoZ eq[;eaf=;ksa dks fuEukafdr :i ls futh deZpkfj;ksa rFkk vU; lqfo/kk miyC/k djkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS %& ¼d½ vkIr lfpo 01 ¼,d½ ljdkjh vFkok futh ¼[k½ futh lgk;d 01 ¼,d½ ljdkjh vFkok futh ¼x½ fuEuoxhZ; fyfid 02 ¼nks½ futh ¼?k½ vkns'kiky 03 ¼rhu½ futh ¼³½ pkyd 01 ¼,d½ futh 3- ekuuh; iwoZ eq[;eaf=;ksa ds vko';d miLdjks lfgr lqlfTtr vkokl ftlesa fu%'kqYd fctyh O;; Hkh 'kkfey gS] miyC/k djkbZ tk;sxhA mDr dkfeZ;ksa rFkk fctyh ij gksus okys O;; dk ogu eq[;ea=h@ea=h ds osrufn en ds O;; 'kh"kZ ls fd;k tk;sxkA ckg~; dfeZ;ks ds osrukfn ds lEcU/k esa foRr foHkkx dk i=kad&7879 fnukad 21-07-2010] ÁHkkoh gksxkA vkokl ,oa vkoklh; dk;kZy; esa yxs miLdjksa ij gksus okys O;; dk ogu Hkou fuekZ.k foHkkx }kjk fd;k tk;sxkA 4- ;g vkns'k rkRdkfyd ÁHkko ls ykxw le>k tk;sxkA 5- ekuuh; iwoZ eq[;eaf=;ksa dks ;g lqfo/kk thoui;ZUr vuqekU; gksxhA 6- mi;qZDr lqfo/kk ekuuh; iwoZ eq[;eaf=;ksa dks miyC/k djkbZ tk jgh lqfo/kkvks ds vfrfjDr gksxhA 7- ;fn dksbZ iwoZ eq[;ea=h ds vO;og~r ikfjokfjd lnL; Hkh iwoZ eq[;ea=h jgsa gks rks mUgsa Ánku dh tkus okyh vkoklh; lqfo/kkvksa dks nqgjk;k ugha tk;xkA vkns'k %& vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd ladYi dks fcgkj xtV ds vlk/kkj.k vad esa Ádkf'kr fd;k tk;A lkFk gh ljdkj ds lHkh foHkkxksa dks bldh Áfr miyC/k djk;h tk;A gLrk{kj@& ¼vt; dqekj f}osnh½ ljdkj ds fo'ks"k lfpo Kkikad&3@lhŒ,lŒ@,eŒ fofo/k&10@2014-----------@iVuk&15] fnukad------------2014 Áfrfyfi&egkys[kkdkj] fcgkj] iVuk dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dkjZokbZ gsrq Ásf"krA gLrk{kj@& ¼vt; dqekj f}osnh½ ljdkj ds fo'ks"k lfpo Kkikad&3@lhŒ,lŒ@,eŒ fofo/k&10@2014-------320@iVuk&15] fnukad 02-07-2014 Áfrfyfi&eq[; lfpo] fcgkj@jkT;iky ds Á/kku lfpo@v/;{k] for ¼yksd m|e C;wjks½ foHkkx foRr vk;qDr] fcgkj] iVuk lHkh foHkkxh; Á/kku lfpo@ekuuh; eq[;ea=h ds Á/kku lfpo@ekuuh; ea=hx.k ds vkIr lfpo@lHkh foHkkxk/;{k@dks"kxkkj inkf/kdkjh] lfpoky; dks"kkxkj flapkbZ Hkou@fodkl Hkou@fo'os'ojS;k Hkou dks lwpukFkZ dkjZokbZ gsrq Ásf"krA gLrk{kj@& ¼vt; dqekj f}osnh½ ljdkj ds fo'ks"k lfpoA** 12. That was followed by a Resolution of the Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar and orders were issued on 30.12.2014 in the name of His Excellency, the Governor of Bihar, to that effect. That was followed by a Resolution of the Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar and orders were issued on 30.12.2014 in the name of His Excellency, the Governor of Bihar, to that effect. The same is extracted here in under:- ^^fcgkj ljdkj Hkou fuekZ.k foHkkx ladYi fo"k; %& fcgkj fo'ks"k lqj{kk ny ¼la'kks/ku½ vf/kfu;e] 2010 dh /kkjk&4 ¼x½ ds ijUrqd ds rgr iwoZ eq[;eaf=;ksa dks iVuk Hkkgjh {ks= ds varxZr lqjf{kr {ks= esa fu%'kqYd iw.kZr% lqlqfTtr vkokl miyC/k djkus ds laca/k esaA fcgkj fo'ks"k lqj{k ny ¼la'kks/ku½ vf/kfu;e] 2010 ds rgr ekuuh; eq[;ea=h ,oa ekuuh; iwoZ eq[;eaf=;ksa dks fo'ks"k lqj{kk Ánku djus dk Áko/kku gSA 2- mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&4 ¼x½ ds ijUrqd ds rgr iwoZ eq[;eaf=;ksa dks iVuk 'kgjh {ks= ds varxZr lqjf{kr {ks= esa fu%'kqYd ljdkjh vkokl fn;s tkus ds Áko/kku ds rgr fn, tkusokys vkokl dks iw.kZr% lqlfTtr fd, tkus ds lkFk gh vko';d lkt&lTtk] mi'dj bR;kfn fcuk foRrh; vf/klhek ds miyC/k djkus dk ÁLrko Hkou fuekZ.k foHkkx ds ikl fopkjk/khu FkkA 3- lE;d~ fopkjksijkar ljdkj }kjk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS fd iwoZ eq[;eaf=;ksa dks iVuk 'kgjh {ks= esa fu%'kqYd ljdkjh vkokl miyC/k djkus ds lkFk gh vkokl dks iw.kZ :is.k lqlfTtr djus rFkk bldk dejs dk fuekZ.k] j[k&j[kko] vko';d lkt&lTtk lkexzh ,oa miLdj] m|ku dk j[k j[kko cxSj foRrh; vf/klhek ds fuekZ.k Hkou fuekZ.k foHkkx }kjk fd;k tk,xkA 4- mi;qZDr ÁLrko ij ekuuh; eq[;ea=h dk vuqeksnu ÁkIr gSA vkns'k %& vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd bl ladYi dks fcgkj jkti= ds vkxkeh vlk/kkj.k vad esa loZlk/kkj.k dh tkudkjh gsrq Ádkf'kr fd;k tk, rFkk bldh Áfr lHkh foHkkx@lHkh foHkkxk/;{kksa@egkys[kkdkj ¼ysŒ ,oa gŒ½ fcgkj lfgr vU; lHkh lacaf/krksa gks Ásf"kr dh tk,A gLrk{kj@& 24&12 ljdkj ds lfpo Kkikad&HkŒ@eqŒvŒ ¼iŒ½ ;sŒ fofo/k&8&180@14] 13247 y vuqŒ iVuk] fnukad 30-12-2014 Áfrfyfi&v/kh{kd] jktdh; eqæ.kky;] xqytkjckx] iVuk dks ¼nks gkMZ dkWih ,oa lhŒMhŒ ds lkFk½ fcgkj jkti= ds vkxkeh vlk/kkj.k vad esa Ádk'kukFkZ Ásf"krA vuqjks/k gS fd bl ladYi ¼layXu ifjf'k"V lfgr½ dh ikap lkS eqfær Áfr;ka foHkkx dks vfoyEc miyC/k djk;h tk,A vuqŒ ;FkksDr gLrk{kj@& papy dqekj 24&12 ljdkj ds lfpo Kkikad&HkŒ@eqŒvŒ ¼iŒ½ ;sŒ fofo/k&8&180@14] 13247 y vuqŒ iVuk] fnukad 30-12-2014 Áfrfyfi&egkys[kkdkj ¼ys[kk ,oa gdnkjh½ fcgkj ohjpan iVsy iFk] iVuk dks ¼nks vfrfjDr Áfr;ksa lfgr½ lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;kZFkZ Ásf"krA gLrk{kj@& 24&12 ljdkj ds lfpo Kkikad&HkŒ@eqŒvŒ ¼iŒ½ ;sŒ fofo/k&8&180@14] 13247 y vuqŒ iVuk] fnukad 30-12-2014 Áfrfyfi&eq[; lfpo@jkT;iky ds Á/kku lfpo@eq[;ea=h ds Á/kku lfpo@lfpo] fcgkj fo/kku lHkk ,oa fcgkj fo/kku ifj"kn@fodkl vk;qDr fcgkj@fcgkj ds lHkh Á/kku lfpo ,oa lfpo@lHkh foHkkx@lHkh foHkkxk/;{k@lHkh ÁeaMyk;qDr@lHkh ftykf/kdkjh@oS;fDrd nkok fu/kkZj.k dks"kkax] foRr foHkkx] fcgkj ljdkj rFkk Hkou fuekZ.k foHkkx ds eq[;ky; Lrjh; lHkh jktif=r inkf/kdkfj;ksa ,oa Á'kk[kkvksa dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;kZFkZ Ásf"krA gLrk{kj@& papy dqekj 24&12 ljdkj ds lfpo Kkikad&HkŒ@eqŒvŒ ¼iŒ½ ;sŒ fofo/k&8&180@14] 13247 y vuqŒ iVuk] fnukad 30-12-2014 Áfrfyfi&lHkh ea=hx.k@lHkh jkT; ea=hx.k ds vkIr lfpoksa dks lwpukFkZ Ásf"krA** 13. The aforesaid orders finally led to the allotment to the six Ex-Chief Ministers vide an Office Memorandum dated 22nd of March, 2016 which is extracted here in under:- ^^fcgkj ljdkj Hkou fuekZ.k foHkkx dkŒvkŒlaŒ&Hkou@eqŒvŒ ¼nŒ½ foŒ fofo/k&8&180@143007 ¼Hk½@iVuk] fnukad 22-03-2018 dk;kZy; vkns'k fcgkj fo'ks"k lqj{kk ny la'kks/ku vf/kfu;e] 2010 ds rgr Hkou fuekZ.k foHkkx dk ladYi Kkikad 13247 ¼Hk½ iVuk fnukad 30-12-2014 }kjk ljdkj ds Lrj ij fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd lqj{kk ds n`f"Vdks.k ls iwoZ eq[;eaf=;ksa dks iVuk 'kgjh {ks= esa fu%'kqYd ljdkjh vkokl miyC/k djkus ds lkFk gh vkokl dks iw.kZ:is.k lqlfTtr djus rFkk bldk dejs dk fuekZ.k] j[k j[kko] vko';d lkt&lTtk lkexzh ,oa miLdj] m|ku dk j[k j[kko cxSj foRrh; vf/klhek ds fuekZ.k Hkou fuekZ.k foHkkx }kjk fd;k tk;sxkA 2- fcgkj fo'ks"k lqj{kk ny la'kks/ku vf/kfu;e] 2010 dh /kkjk&4 esa Li"V gS fd inkof/k dks /;ku esa j[ks fcuk iwoZ ekuuh; eq[;ea=hx.k iVuk 'kgjh {ks= ds varxZr lqjf{kr {ks= esa fu%'kqYd vkokl ds ik= gksaxsA 3- eaf=eaMy lfpoky; foHkkx ds i=kad 320 fnukad 02-07-2014 ds ek/;e ls iwoZ ekuuh; eq[;ea=h dks vko';d miLdj lfgr lqlfTtr vkokl miyC?k djkus dk Áko/kku gS lkFk gh bl ij gksus okys O;; dk ogu Hkou fuekZ.k foHkkx }kjk fd;k tkuk Áko/kkfur gSA 4- ljdkj ds mi;ZqDr fu.kZ; ekuuh; iwoZ eq[;eaf=;ksa dh lqj{kk ,oa muds nkf;Roksa ds lE;d fuoZgu ls lacaf/kr vko';drkvksa ds vkyksd esa fy;s x;s gSA ftlds varxZr mUgsa vkIr lfpo] futh lgk;d vkfn dkfeZ;ksa dh lsok Hkh miyC/k djk;h tkrh gSA 5- fofgr ifjfLFkfr esa ljdkj ds Lrj ls fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS fd orZeku esa iwoZ eq[;eaf=;ksa }kjk /kkfjr vkoklksa dks muds thou i;Zure d.kkZfdr fd;k rkfd ckj&ckj lqj{kk ds n`f"Vdks.k ,oa vU; ekud lqfo/kkvksa dks miyC/k djkus gsrq vfrfjDr ljdkjh jkf'k dk O;; ugha djuk iM+sA mDr ds vkyksd esa iwoZ eq[;eaf=;ksa }kjk /kkfjr vkoklksa dks muds thou i;Zur d.kkZfdr djrs gq;s fuEu:is.k vkoafVr fd;k tkrk gS %& Øekad ekuuh; eq[;ea=h dk uke vkoafVr vkokl vfHk;qfDr 1 Jh lrh'k Álkn flag 33@, gkfMZx jksM+ 2 MkŒ txUukFk feJ 41] Økafr ekxZ ¼gkfMZx jksM] iVuk½ 3 Jh ykyw Álkn 10] ldqZyj jksM+ 4 Jhefr jkcM+h nsoh 10] ldqZyj jksM+ 5 Jh furh'k dqekj 7] ldqZyj jksM+ 6 Jh thru jkr eka>h 12 ,e] LVªS.M jksM gLrk{kj@& ¼mes'k dqekj½ ljdkj ds la;qDr lfpo Kkikad--------------3007@vLi"V--------------------@iVuk] fnukad 22-03-2016 Áfrfyfi&ekuuh eq[;ea=h ds Á/kku lfpo] fcgkj] iVuk@ekuuh; ea=h ds vkIr lfpo Hkou fuekZ.k foHkkx] fcgkj] iVuk@eq[; lfpo ds Á/kku vkIr lfpo] fcgkj] iVuk@Á/kku lfpo ds Á/kku vkIr lfpo] Hkou fuekZ.k foHkkx] fcgkj] iVuk@eq[; vfHk;ark ¼iVuk½@v/kh{k.k vfHk;ark] nf{k.k fcgkj vapy] iVuk@dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark] dsUæh; Hkou ÁeaMy] iVuk@dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark] dj ÁeaMy] Hkou fuekZ.k foHkkx] iVuk@dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark] ubZ jkt/kkuh ÁeaMy] isalw] iVuk@dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark] fo|qr dk;Z ÁeaMy] iVuk ,oa lacaf/kr ekuuh; iwoZ eq[;ea=h fcgkj] iVuk ds vkIr lfpo dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dkjZokbZ gsrq Ásf"krA gLrk{kj@& ¼mes'k dqekj½ 22-03-2016 ljdkj ds la;qDr lfpo Hkonh; i`Œ&15@iqŒ ij foHkkxh; ladYi dk voyksdu djuk pkgsaxs fcgkj fo'ks"k lqj{kk ny ¼la'kks/ku½ vf/kfu;e] 2010 dh Hkkx&4 ¼x½ ds ijUrqd ds rgr iwoZ eq[;eaf=;ksa dks iVuk 'kgjh {ks= esa iw.kZr% lqlfTtr fu%'kqYd vkokl miyC/k djkus ds laca/k esa fuEu fu.kZ; ljdkj ds Lrj ij fy;s x;s gS %& iwoZ eq[;eaf=;ksa dks iVuk 'kgjh {ks= esa fu%'kqYd ljdkjh vkokl miyC/k djkus ds lkFk gh vkokl dks iw.kZ :is.k lqlfTtr djus rFkk bldk dejs dk fuekZ.k j[k&j[kko vko';d lkt&lTtk lkexzh ,oa miLdj] m|ku dk j[k&j[kko cxSj foRrh; vf/klhek ds fuekZ.k Hkou fuekZ.k foHkkx }kjk fd;k tk;sxkA 2- fofnr gks fd mi;qZDr fu.kZ; fof/k foHkkx dks vf/klwpuk la[;k&¼laŒ&iVuk&261½ fnukad 13-04-2010½ }kjk fcgkj fo'ks"k lqj{kk ny ¼la'kks/ku½ vf/kfu;e] 2010 dh /kkjk&4 ,oa eaf=eaMy lfpoky; ds i=kad&320 fnukad 02-07-2014 ds vkyksd esa fy, x;s gSA 3- fcgkj fo'ks"k lqj[kk ny ¼la'kks/ku½ vf/kfu;e 2010 dh /kkjk&4 esa Li"V gS fd inkof/k dks /;ku esa j[ks fcuk iwoZ ekuuh; eq[;ea=hx.k iVuk 'kgjh {ks= ds varxZr lqjf{kr {ks= esa fu%'kqYd vkokl ds ik= gksxsaA ¼i`Œ&5@iŒ d`i;k æ"VO;½A 4- eaf=eaMy lfpoky; foHkkx ds i=kad&320 fnukad 02-07-2014 ds ek/;e ls iwoZ ekuuh; eq[;ea=h dks vko';d miLdj lfgr lqlfTtr vkokl miyC?k djkus dk Áko/kku gS lkFk gh bl ij gksus okys O;; dk ogu Hkou fuekZ.k foHkkx }kjk fd;k tkuk Áko/kkfur gSA 5- ljdkj ds mi;qZDr fu.kZ; ekuuh; iwoZ eq[;eaf=;ksa dh lqj{kk ,oa muds nkf;Roksa ds lE;d fuoZgu ls lacaf/kr] vko';drkvksa ds vkyksd esa fy, x;s gSA ftlds varxZr vkIr lfpo] futh lgk;d vkfn dkfeZ;ksa dh lsok Hkh miyC/k djk;h tkrh gSA 6- fofnr gks fd ekuuh; iwoZ eq[;eaf=;ksa dks lqj{kk ,oa muds nkf;Roksa dks n`f"ViFk esa j[krs gq, mudks vkoafVr vkoklksa esa ljdkj }kjk vuqekU; ekud lqfo/kk;sa miyC/k djk;h tkrh gSA 7- fofnr ifjfLFkfr esa ;g lehphu Árhr gksrk gS fd orZeku esa ekuuh; iwoZ eq[;eaf=;ksa }kjk /kkfjr vkoklksa dks muds uke ls gh muds thou i;ZUr d.kkZfdr fd;k tk;] rkfd ckj&ckj lqj{kk ds n`f"Vdks.k ,oa vU; ekud lqfo/kkvksa dks miyC/k djkus gsrq vfrfjDr ljdkjh jkf'k dk O;; u djuk iM+sA bl ÁLrko ij Hkonh; ekuuh; mi eq[; Hkou fuekZ.k ea=h dk vuqeksnu ÁkIr djuk pkgsxsaA gLrk{kj@& ¼xaxk dqekj½ Á/kku lfpo 17-03-2016 mi eq[; ¼Hkou fuekZ.k½ ea=h gLrk{kj@& rstLoh Álkn ;kno 18-03-2016 ikj i`"B ij vkns'k ds vkyksd esa ,oa vkns'k ij Ák:i vuqeksfnr fd;k tk ldrk gSA Á/kku lfpo i`"B 17@40 Øekad la[;k&3007 ¼Hk½ fnukad 22-03-2016 ekuuh; iwoZ eq[;ea=h dks vkoklh lqfo/kk ls lacaf/kr pkj jkT;ksa ;Fkk e/; Áns'k] mRrj Áns'k] jktLFkku ,oa d.kkZVd ds laca/k esa tkudkjh dh lwpuk /ot ^^,** æ"VO; gSA d`i;k Ák:i esa Á/kku lfpo egksn; dk vuqeksnu ÁkfFkZr gSA ¼'kkyhxzke Álkn½A** 14. It appears from the extract of the file notings that the said Office Memorandum was issued after the approval of the then Deputy Chief Minister who also held the Cabinet post of Minister of Public Works Division which also notices the provisions of allotment of premises to Ex-Chief Ministers in the State of Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Karnataka. 15. The allotment of premises No.7, Circular Road to the present Chief Minister was made for his life time in the capacity of an ex-Chief Minister as well, which is evident from the Notification dated 25th May, 2018, which is extracted here in under:- ^^fcgkj ljdkj Hkou fuekZ.k foHkkx vf/klwpuk vf/klwpuk la[;k thŒchŒMhŒ&1&20 11@16 4994 ¼Hk½ iVuk fd fnukad 25-05-2018 1] v.ks ekxZ] iVuk] ekuuh; eq[;ea=h ds vkokl ds :i esa d.kkZfdr gS] esa orZeku esa foHkkx ds }kjk vko';drkuqlkj iqu%fuekZ.k ,oa ejEefr dk dk;Z djk;s tkus ds dkj.k fnukad 15-04-2018 ls ekuuh; eq[;ea=h 7] ldqZyj jksM+ esa vkokflr gks x;s gSA ;g vkokl mUgsa HkwriwoZ eq[;ea=h ds :i esa vkthou d.kkZfdr fd;k x;k gSA vr% mDr ds vkyksd esa l{ke Ákf/kdkj ds vkns'k ls fnukad 15-04-2018 ls 7] ldZqyj jksM+ iVuk dks 1 v.ks ekxZ esa iqu%fuekZ.k ,oa ejEefr dk;Z iw.kZ djk;s tkus rd eq[;ea=h ds vkokl ds :i esa fpfUgr djrs gq, vf/klwfpr fd;k tkrk gSA fcgkj jkT;iky ds vkns'k ls] gLrk{kj@& ¼fou; dqekj½ Hkw&lEink inkkf/kdkjhA la[;k thŒchŒMhŒ&1&20 11@16 4994 ¼Hk½ iVuk fd fnukad 25-05-2018 Áfrfyfi&foRr foHkkx] bZŒ&xtV 'kk[kk dks jktdh; xtV esa Ádk'kukFkZ Ásf"krA gLrk{kj@& vLi"V ljdkj ds mi≶&lfpo Hkw&lEink inkf/kdkjhA la[;k thŒchŒMhŒ&1&20 11@16 4994 ¼Hk½ iVuk fd fnukad 25-05-2018 Áfrfyfi&lHkh Á/kku lfpo@lHkh lfpo@lHkh foHkkxk/;{k@iqfyl egkfujh{kd@lfpo] fcgkj fo/kku lHkk@ifj"kn@mi lfpo] eq[;ea=h lfpoky;] fcgkj iVuk@foHkkxh; ea=h ds vkIr lfpo@Á/kku lfpo ds Á/kku vkIr lfpo] Hkou fuekZ.k foHkkx@lHkh eq[; vfHk;ark] Hkou fuekZ.k foHkkx@ dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark] dsUæh; Hkou ÁeaMy] iVuk@dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark] dj ÁeaMy@ dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark] yksd LokLF; vfHk;a=.k@dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark] fo|qr@vkbZŒVhŒ eSaustj] Hkou fuekZ.k foHkkx] iVuk dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dkjZokbZ gsrq Ásf"krA gLrk{kj@& vLi"V ljdkj ds milfpo≶&Hkw&lEink inkf/kdkjhA** 16. The said Notification was modified on 7th of January, 2019, i.e., on the date when a direction was issued by this Court to register the present Public Interest Litigation. The said Notification was modified on 7th of January, 2019, i.e., on the date when a direction was issued by this Court to register the present Public Interest Litigation. The same is extracted here in under:- ^^fcgkj ljdkj Hkou fuekZ.k foHkkx dk;kZy; vkns'k la[;k&thŒchŒMhŒ&1&20&17@2014-02---¼HkŒ½ iVuk] fnukad 07-01-2019 dk;kZy; vkns'k ekuuh; eq[;ea=h ds vLFkk;h vkoklu gsrq foHkkxh; vf/klwpuk la[;k&4994 ¼Hk½ fnukad&25-05-2018 }kjk vkoafVr 7] ldqZyj jksM+ dks la'kksf/kr djrs gq, eq[; lfpo] fcgkj ds vkokl ds :i esa d.kkZfdr fd;k tkrk gSA ;g d.kkZdu ekuuh; eq[;ea=h }kjk 7] ldqZyj jksM+ dks [kkyh djus ds frfFk ls ÁHkkoh gksxkA bl laca/k esa vU; vkns'k bl gn rd la'kksf/kr le>s tk,axsaA 2- pawfd 1] v.ks ekxZ ds jsVªksfQfVax ,oa ejEefr dk;Z lekfIr ds i'pkr~ gh 7] ldZqyj jksM+ vkokl [kkyh gks ldsxkA vr% iwokZns'k dks fo[kafMr djrs gq, 2] ldqZyj jksM+ dks eq[; lfpo] fcgkj ds dSEi dk;kZy; ds :i esa vxys vkns'k rd ds fy, vkoafVr fd;k tkrk gSA 3- mDr vkns'kksa esa l{ke Ákf/kdkj dk vuqeksnu ÁkIr gSA gLrk{kj ¼fou; dqekj½ milfpo≶&Hkw&lEink inkf/kdkjh Kkikad&thŒchŒMhŒ&01&20&17@2014@195 ¼HkŒ½] iVuk] fnukad 07-01-2019 Áfrfyfi&ekuuh eq[;ea=h] fcgkj ds Á/kku lfpo@ekuuh; ea=h ds vkIr lfpo@eq[; lfpo] fcgkj ds Á/kku vkIr lfpo@Á/kku lfpo] Hkou fuekZ.k foHkkx ds Á/kku vkIr lfpo@eq[; vfHk;ark ¼iVuk½@v/kh{k.k vfHk;ark] nf{k.k fcgkj vapy] iVuk@dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark] dsUæh; Hkou ÁeaMy@ikVfyiq= Hkou ÁeaMy@dj ÁeaMy@dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark] fo|qr] Hkou fuekZ.k foHkkx@vkbZŒVhŒ eSaustj] Hkou fuekZ.k foHkkx dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;kZFkZ Ásf"krA milfpo≶&Hkw&lEink inkf/kdkjhA** 17. A fall out of the State action further manifested itself in the issuance of Office Memorandum of the Building Construction Department on 22nd January, 2019 which is extracted here in under:- ^^fcgkj ljdkj Hkou fuekZ.k foHkkx dk;kZy; vkns'k la[;k&thŒchŒMhŒ&01@20 ¼eqŒlaŒ½&06@2018] 05@iVuk] fnukad&22-01-2019 dk;kZy; vkns'k foHkkxh; dk;kZy; vkns'k la[;k@02 ¼HkŒ½] fnukad 07-01-2019 lg&ifBr Kkikad 195 ¼Hk½ iVuk] fnukad 07-01-2019 ds Øe esa jsVªksfQfVax dk;Z lekfIr ds i'pkr~ ekuuh; eq[;ea=h Jh uhrh'k dqekj ds iqu% 1] v.kZ ekxZ vkokl esa fnukad 20-01-2019 dks vkoflr gksus ds i'pkr~ jktif=r vkokl la[;k&07] ldZqyj jksM+] iVuk] tks eq[; lfpo dks d.kkZfdr gS] dks fnukad 20-01-2019 ds ÁHkko ls Jh nhid dqekj] eq[; lfpo] fcgkj dks vkoafVr ekuk tkrk gSA 2- ÁLrko esa l{ke Ákf/kdkj dk vuqeksnu ÁkIr gSA gLrk{kj@& ¼fou; dqekj½ 22-01-2019 milfpo≶&Hkw&lEink inkf/kdkjh Kkikad&thŒchŒMhŒ&01@20 ¼eqŒlŒ½&06@2018] 738 ¼Hk½@iVuk] fnukad&22-01-2019 Áfrfyfi&ekuuh eq[;ea=h] fcgkj ds Á/kku lfpo@ekuuh; ea=h ds vkIr lfpo@eq[; lfpo] fcgkj ds Á/kku vkIr lfpo@Á/kku lfpo] Hkou fuekZ.k foHkkx ds Á/kku vkIr lfpo@eq[; vfHk;ark ¼iVuk½@v/kh{k.k vfHk;ark] nf{k.k fcgkj vapy] iVuk@dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark] dsUæh; Hkou ÁeaMy@ikVfyiq= Hkou ÁeaMy@dj ÁeaMy@dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark] fo|qr] Hkou fuekZ.k foHkkx@vkbZŒVhŒ eSaustj] Hkou fuekZ.k foHkkx dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;kZFkZ Ásf"krA gLrk{kj@& 22-01-2019 milfpo≶&Hkw&lEink inkf/kdkjhA** 18. All the aforesaid facts are now on record as is evident from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Bihar. 19. The learned Advocate General, therefore, contends that the validity of the provisions, the notice whereof has been taken by this Court, now deserves to be tested as to whether such an act is beyond the constitutional powers conferred on the State Legislature or whether it is only the exercise of such powers which is sought to be questioned through this Public Interest Litigation. For this, the learned Advocate General has advanced his submissions and the Court has noticed the provisions of sub-article (5) of Article 164 of the Constitution of India which is extracted here in under:- “(5) The salaries and allowances of Ministers shall be such as the Legislature of the State may from time to time by law determine and, until the Legislature of the State so determines, shall be as specified in the Second Schedule.” 20. The provision in the Second Schedule contained in Part B thereof was omitted by Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956. It is to be noticed that the same is pari materia to the provisions of Article 75 (6) in relation to the Union Parliament. 21. The provision in the Second Schedule contained in Part B thereof was omitted by Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956. It is to be noticed that the same is pari materia to the provisions of Article 75 (6) in relation to the Union Parliament. 21. This may be read with Entry 40 of List-II- State List in the 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India extracted here in under:- “40. Salaries and allowances of Ministers for the State” 22. For the Union Ministers, the Entry is Entry 75 of List-I (Union List). 23. The question, therefore, is as to whether it was within the competence of the Legislature to have enacted any such law followed by the executive instructions as extracted hereinabove and if so, whether the same do not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness. 24. We have narrated and extracted the step-wise decisions taken by the State Government and what we find is that the original provision made in the Amending Act of 2010 was essentially for providing a Government premises to Ex-Chief Ministers within the urban area of Patna free of charges bereft of their tenure as Chief Minister. The only rider placed in sub-section (ii) was that if the immediate relation of any Ex-Chief Minister has also served as an Ex-Chief Minister, then there would be only one set of benefit available. The foundation of such a provision has not been clarified in any of the Notifications, but the Court could gather from the submissions advanced that this may have been done as one of the former Chief Minister’s wife also became a Chief Minister later on and, therefore, as indicated in the Office Memorandum dated 22nd March, 2016, there is only one allotment of 10, Circular Road to Shri Lalu Prasad and Smt. Rabri Devi, whose names appear at Serial Nos.3 and 4 of the said Office Memorandum. 25. The matter took a turn when the Cabinet passed a Resolution on 2nd July, 2014, extracted hereinabove. By this Resolution, it appears that a decision was taken to confer a large number of other benefits apart from the allotment of a bungalow/premises free of charges as envisaged under the 2010 Amendment Act. This Cabinet Resolution provides for staff eight in number as per clause 2 of the Resolution dated 2nd July, 2014. By this Resolution, it appears that a decision was taken to confer a large number of other benefits apart from the allotment of a bungalow/premises free of charges as envisaged under the 2010 Amendment Act. This Cabinet Resolution provides for staff eight in number as per clause 2 of the Resolution dated 2nd July, 2014. In Clause 3, the allotment of a premises free of electricity charges and with all furnishings was re-asserted. It was further provided that the said expenditure shall be incurred under the head of the Chief Minister/Minister expenditure relating to their salaries and allowances. The staff which was to be provided as per Clause 2, their expenditure was to be met as per the Circular of the Finance Department dated 21st July, 2010. The furnishings and premises were to be maintained by the Building Construction Department. Clause 5 reiterates that this facility shall be available to the Ex-Chief Ministers throughout their life. Clause 6 further indicates that the said facilities shall be in relation to the facilities already provided for. The rider of not repeating the facilities to any member of the family of the Ex-Chief Minister, who had occupied the same office is also recited. 26. The Building Construction Department in its turn resolved to add a further clause in its Resolution dated 30.12.2014 that whatever furnishings and maintenance work have to be undertaken for providing a premises to an Ex-Chief Minister within the urban area in Patna shall be without any financial limits [XXX]. The said Resolution was issued under the authority of His Excellency, the Governor of Bihar, after the approval of the then Chief Minister as is evident from the recital contained therein. 27. This led to the allotment on 22nd March, 2016 by the Building Construction Department ear-marking five premises for life time to six former Chief Ministers in the manner aforesaid. 28. This was followed by the allotment in favour of the present Chief Minister under the Notification dated 25th May, 2018 where it was recited that 7, Circular Road is being allotted to the Chief Minister for his life time in the capacity of his being an Ex-Chief Minister. However, the reason given was that since the official residence of the Chief Minister, 1, Anne Marg, was undergoing retrofication and repairs, therefore, it had become necessary to issue the order, extracted hereinabove. However, the reason given was that since the official residence of the Chief Minister, 1, Anne Marg, was undergoing retrofication and repairs, therefore, it had become necessary to issue the order, extracted hereinabove. This was followed by the Office Memorandum dated 7th January, 2019 whereby the Office Memorandum dated 25th May, 2018 was modified reciting that the premises of 7, Circular Road stands allotted to the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, but the earmarking would become effective from the date the Chief Minister vacates the said premises which is being occupied by him till the repair and maintenance of 1, Anne Marg is completed. For the time being, the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, was allotted to utilize No.2, Circular Road as his Camp Office. 29. On 22nd January, 2019, the Office Memorandum was issued notifying that the Chief Minister has now finally shifted to 1, Anne Marg and therefore, the premises allotted earlier to him as an Ex-Chief Minister, namely, 7, Circular Road stands allotted to Sri Deepak Kumar, the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar. 30. The learned Advocate General has, therefore, urged that the notice issued by this Court to the present Chief Minister Shri Nitish Kumar does not need any response in this regard in view of the aforesaid developments. 31. As already noted by us in order dated 11th of January, 2019, no one has put an appearance on behalf of Shri Satish Prasad Singh in spite of service of notice on him. It has been informed at the Bar that Sri Satish Prasad Singh remained as Chief Minister in all probability long back for only a couple of days. It is quite possible that in spite of having received notices, he may not have decided to respond to this Public Interest Litigation. 32. Shri Abhinav Shrivastava, who has appeared for Smt. Rabri Devi and Shri Lalu Prasad, has urged that the allotments are in accordance with law and that they do not suffer from any infirmity. The present Government has also not cancelled the said allotment or withdrawn the same, therefore, this Court may take into consideration all relevant facts as the State Legislature has brought about an enactment which cannot be said to be not in conformity with law. The present Government has also not cancelled the said allotment or withdrawn the same, therefore, this Court may take into consideration all relevant facts as the State Legislature has brought about an enactment which cannot be said to be not in conformity with law. He, however, submits that the judgment in the case of Lok Prahari (supra) was with regard to the allotments in the State of Uttar Pradesh that may have been grounded on a different set of facts. 33. Similar arguments have been adopted by Shri Dinu Kumar and other counsel appearing on behalf of another Chief Minister Sri Jitan Ram Manjhi. Sri Nityanand Jha and two others, who have appeared on behalf of Sri Jagannath Mishra, have urged that facts of allotments not being disputed, the issue is only legal and, therefore, they have also urged that the State Government has not chosen to rescind or cancel their allotments, hence they would also abide by the law declared by the Courts. Thus, the affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Bihar bringing on records the facts relating to the allotment have nowhere been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the Ex-Chief Ministers referred to above who are beneficiaries of the allotments under the Office Memorandum dated 22nd March, 2016. 34. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the competence of the Legislature to enact a law within the constitutional limits on the issue relating to the salaries and allowances of Ministers is saved under Article 164 (5) of the Constitution of India as noted above. This does not, however, extend any such privileges to Ex-Chief Ministers and, therefore, the validity of the Amending Act of 2010 (Bihar Act No.10 of 2010) has to be tested on this anvil. We do not find any constitutional provision enabling the State Legislature to enact any law with regard to Ex-Chief Ministers. The entries in the Seventh Schedule, particularly Entry 40 of List II as contained in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution does not empower the State Legislature to make any law for Ex-Chief Ministers. It is for this reason that the State under the garb of its legislative authority took resort to an amendment in the Bihar Special Security Group Act, 2000 in the name of security of an Ex-Chief Minister. It is for this reason that the State under the garb of its legislative authority took resort to an amendment in the Bihar Special Security Group Act, 2000 in the name of security of an Ex-Chief Minister. The object and reason of the 2010 Amendment Act recites that in order to provide ample security to Ex- Chief Ministers was considered appropriate keeping in view the threat perception of extremists and terrorists organization. In order to further fortify this, another reason was added in the Cabinet Resolution dated 2nd July, 2014 that since Ex-Chief Ministers during their tenure in office have to remain in contact and continue to perform their social obligations, therefore, such facilities should be made available. This in our opinion has no nexus with security. It is more for maintaining a lost status. What is more interesting in the reasons disclosed is that by allotting and by ear-marking a particular premises, repeated expenses can be avoided. This addition is in Clause 5 of the Office Memorandum dated 22nd March, 2016. This is also evident from the file noting No. (7) extracted hereinabove. What is also noticeable is that the file noting also refers to the availability of such facilities in four other States throughout the country, namely, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Karnataka. Needless to mention that the date on which the aforesaid Memorandum was issued, the earlier round of litigation in the case of Lok Prahari Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in, (2016) 8 SCC 389 was pending which came to be decided on 1st of August, 2016. The first judgment in the case of Lok Prahari (supra) held that such a largess given to former Chief Ministers is without any element of reasonableness. The Rules which had been framed by the State of Uttar Pradesh were struck down. 35. The State of Uttar Pradesh brought about a legislation in order to overcome the said decision by an amendment in the year 2016 similar to that which is involved herein being U.P. Act No. 22 of 2016. The same was struck down after discussing all the constitutional provisions holding that such Bungalows constitute public property which by itself is scarce and meant for use of current holders of public offices. The same was struck down after discussing all the constitutional provisions holding that such Bungalows constitute public property which by itself is scarce and meant for use of current holders of public offices. It was held that questions relating to allotment of such properties are, therefore, questions of public character and hence amenable for being adjudicated on the touchstone of reasonable classification as well as arbitrariness. The Court then went on to hold in paragraphs 38 and 39 that such a legislative exercise is based on irrelevant and legally unacceptable considerations, unsupported by any constitutional sanctity. The said paragraphs have already been extracted hereinabove and quoted in our earlier order dated 8th of January, 2019. 36. We may further analyze that the cover of security which is sought to be given for allotment of such official premises for a life time is nowhere borne out from any material in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. There is nothing to indicate as to how would the security be jeopardized of any Ex-Chief Minister unless he is allotted a Government Premises free of all charges for his life time with unlimited financial maintenance facilities. The same cannot be traced to any constitutional provision or any statutory provision, apart from the offending part of the Amendment Act of 2010 presently in question. It is further to be noted that the Amending Act of 2010 only makes a provision for allotment of a premises for the life time of an Ex-Chief Minister. All further benefits have been added by way of executive decisions either through the Resolution of the Cabinet or the issuance of a Government Order or an Office Memorandum as noted hereinabove. 37. We are unable to trace any authority available for making such provisions that too even in the teeth of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of Lok Prahari through its General Secretary Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in, (2018) 6 SCC 1 . We had also noticed in our order dated 8th January, 2019 that in paragraph 12 of the said report, the Apex Court had through the Amicus Curiae informed the law officers of the Union and all the States/Union Territories throughout the country and pursuant thereto, the State of Bihar had responded in the said proceedings. We had also noticed in our order dated 8th January, 2019 that in paragraph 12 of the said report, the Apex Court had through the Amicus Curiae informed the law officers of the Union and all the States/Union Territories throughout the country and pursuant thereto, the State of Bihar had responded in the said proceedings. In paragraph 13 it had been categorically noticed that in the case of State of Bihar, such a provision has been made by executive instructions under Article 162 of the Constitution of India. It is true that executive instructions had been issued as noted hereinabove, but that had been with the aid of a statutory provision in the Bihar Special Security Group Amendment Act (Bihar Act No.10 of 2010) that was similar to the amendment in the U.P. Act of 2016 that was struck down. The State of Bihar, therefore, appears to have not responded correctly to the Supreme Court by bringing to its notice the Amendment Act, 2010 (Bihar Act No.10 of 2010) which has been made the basis for the issuance of the executive instructions and is being considered by us in the present proceedings. The State of Bihar also does not appear to have taken any steps for amending or rescinding any such offending provision in spite of the pronouncement of the Apex Court judgment on 7th May, 2018. The only re-deeming feature that the learned Advocate General was able to point out was that the present Chief Minister has given up the allotment of the Bungalow made to him as an Ex-Chief Minister and has confined himself to the Bungalow allotted to him as the Chief Minister of the State. The other allottees have not put in any substantial resistance on being confronted with the aforesaid legal position. 38. A perusal of the entire facts as discussed above would indicate that the salaries, allowances and other benefits as envisaged under Article 164(5) of the Constitution of India are all intended to be co-terminus with office and are limited by budgetary expenditures. In a democracy which is founded on principles of socialism, it is difficult to comprehend unlimited expenditures being made available, that too even through executive instructions without any corresponding provision in any statutory law. This is clearly arbitrary being unguided and unbridled. In a democracy which is founded on principles of socialism, it is difficult to comprehend unlimited expenditures being made available, that too even through executive instructions without any corresponding provision in any statutory law. This is clearly arbitrary being unguided and unbridled. This sort of a benefit being introduced has absolutely no rational nexus with the object of security under the garb of which such facilities are sought to be conferred by elected public representatives on themselves fully knowing that there is no such concept of a life time privilege available after demitting office merely because they are in politics. This is a blatant example of over spending from the public exchequer and drawing from the well of finances that are already deficit. It is high time that the boundaries of such expenditure are re-drawn and funneling of State finances is checked. Not only has the Legislature exceeded in its authority against public interest, but the executive fiat of the State has also travelled beyond its legal and ethical limits, that is witnessed by the executive instructions which are examples of bureaucratic skills that eludes all ingenunities. The authority to confer such benefits on themselves in an unmeasured fashion is clearly unconstitutional and tends to reflect predatory instincts for usurping public exchequer. It is a collective expression of acquiring public property perpetually in the name of public service. The attitude therefore is divorced from morality and withers the faith of the public. Any law or executive instructions in excess of powers, as involved in the present case, is, therefore, ultra vires showing complete disregard to the Constitution and being repugnant to the Constitutional philosophy of democratic socialism. The action clearly infringes the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution and militates against the ideas of justice. The executive instructions not only suffer from infirmities like procedural irregularity and illegality, but are also irrational as per the test laid down by Lord Diplock in CCSU Vs. Minister for Civil Service, 1983 1 AC 768 . The entire action reflects as to how innocence of public faith has been bartered in conferring privileges on themselves long after the Constitution itself has denounced recognition of titles and conferment of privileges during the British regime. Minister for Civil Service, 1983 1 AC 768 . The entire action reflects as to how innocence of public faith has been bartered in conferring privileges on themselves long after the Constitution itself has denounced recognition of titles and conferment of privileges during the British regime. It is strange that the privy purses were withdrawn on the philosophy of socialism in a modern democracy, but in practice such actions in the name of democracy are now being conferred unilaterally by the holders of public office in the manner aforesaid. 39. It has rightly been observed by James Hacker, a former Prominent Member of Parliament of House of Commons in his famous critique “Yes Minister,” “The Public do not know anything about wasting public money. We are the experts”. The law makers of the country have a patriotic duty to take right decisions and not claim compensations as presently involved under the garb of security. To create a sanctuary for oneself that involves heavy finances and public resources, has to be viewed strictly under the parameters of the Constitution, that too even for a person who demits a public office which he has occupied for a fixed tenure on being elected by people. There is no provision in the Constitution that such an elected representative can claim or ask for a price after he demits office. A claim of this nature reflects as if it is something parasitical. It is a legacy of a continued red carpet treatment riding rough shod over the law. The legislation and the executive instructions are not based on reason so as to be called rational. They are not even moderate and therefore, there is no rationale behind the action under scrutiny. The apostle of modern India- Mahatma Gandhi and one of his disciples Shri Lal Bahadur Shashtri are examples who believed that democracy meant a Government of the People, by the People and for the People. In the present case, the extension of benefits after demitting office reflects a Government by the Law Makers unto themselves. 40. We, therefore, find that the provision made under the Amending Act, namely Bihar Act No.10 of 2010, for allotting a premises to an Ex-Chief Minister throughout his life is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lok Prahari (supra) and is otherwise constitutionally unwarranted. The same is hereby struck down. 40. We, therefore, find that the provision made under the Amending Act, namely Bihar Act No.10 of 2010, for allotting a premises to an Ex-Chief Minister throughout his life is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lok Prahari (supra) and is otherwise constitutionally unwarranted. The same is hereby struck down. 41. Apart from this, the Cabinet Resolution dated 2nd July, 2014 that took the shape of a Resolution of the Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar, dated 30.12.2014 also suffers from the vice of an excessive extension of benefits beyond the constitutional limits to an Ex-Chief Minister by providing a Bungalow free of charges after demitting office throughout his or her life and with unlimited financial maintenance facilities. The same to that extent is also struck down. As a consequence thereof, the allotments made under the Office Memorandum dated 22nd March, 2016 and 25th May, 2018 are also quashed to the extent indicated above. All the said allottees therefore, are called upon to vacate the premises allotted to them unless they are otherwise entitled to retain the same under any other law of allotment for the time being in force in the State of Bihar. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, is therefore, directed to issue an appropriate order in the light of above. 42. This Public Interest Litigation stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions.