ORDER : AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J. 1. 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 hereinunder:- “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 thereunder. 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 thereunder. 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. 2. 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? 3. 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. 4. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. It is, therefore, evident that the source of such eligibility for allotment emanates from the provisions of Section 2 of the 2010 Amendment Act. 7. 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 . 8. 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 hereinunder 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. 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. (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 sub-section, he shall be entitled to a compensatory allowance at the rate of- (a) three hundred rupees per month in the case of Deputy Minister, and (b) five hundred rupees per month in any other case.” “4. Amendment of Section 4.- For Section 4 of the principal Act, the following sections shall be substituted, namely: ‘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. (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- (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. 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.” 9. 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 hereinunder:- “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. 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.” 10. 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 hereinunder:- “13. What should be the terms of the same is a matter to be decided by the Government.” 10. 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 hereinunder:- “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.” 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. 13. 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 hereinunder:- “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. 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.” 14. 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.” 14. 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. 15. 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). 16. 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. 17. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. As prayed by the learned Advocate General, let the matter come up after four weeks on 11th of February, 2019.