Justice Indermeet Kaur asked the Centre not to take any coercive steps against Payal Abdullah and her two sons till next date pursuant to the eviction order of June 30.
The court asked the Ministries of Urban Development and Home Affairs to reply to the petitioners plea that if they are found to be entitled to an alternate government accommodation then the Centre be directed not to evict them till a suitable residence is alloted to them and it is cleared and equipped by the security personnel.
In their plea, the wife and sons of Omar Abdullah, have claimed the Centre, through a letter dated September 9, 2015, allotted the 7 Akbar Road bungalow to the state of Jammu and Kashmir as the Chief Minister's residence with retrospective effect from August 11, 2009, without following the due process of law, which was thus illegal.
They have contended that even now the website of the Department of Hospitality and Protocol of Government of Jammu and Kashmir shows that the residence of Chief Minister of the state was at 5, Prithviraj Road.
The petitioners, including the two children, have sought
parity with Priyanka Gandhi, Subramanian Swamy and several others who have been granted government accommodation on security grounds.
However, ASG Jain told the court that the petitioner's case was different from that of Priyanka Gandhi as she was a special protectee of SPG.
Khemka, appearing for the petitioners, told the court that today was the last date for filing their appeal challenging the eviction order and they would be filing it today itself.
The petitioners have contended that the eviction order was passed without allowing them to lead evidence and without granting any personal hearing to them.
As per the eviction order, the petitioners were given 15 days to vacate the premises.
The petitioners have sought that they be either allowed to continue at Bungalow No. 7, Akbar Road, or allotted another suitable government accommodation where the security personnel, numbering 94, can effectively protect them.
Payal Abdullah, in the plea, has said she has a flat in the city but it would be "totally insufficient for making elaborate security arrangements for their protection" as there are other flats in the same building.
You’ve hit your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Access to Exclusive Premium Stories Online
Over 30 behind the paywall stories daily, handpicked by our editors for subscribers


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app