UP Bungalow Row Continues to Haunt Akhilesh Yadav; May Have to Pay Rs 10 Lakh for Damages

Lucknow: The official bungalow of former Uttar Pradesh chief minister Akhilesh Yadav suffered damages worth Rs 10 lakh, suggests a report submitted by Public Works Department chief engineer AK Sharma to the state estate officer.

A 266-page report, detailing the damages, has been submitted to the state estate officer. The report also highlights that the tiles and electrical wiring of the bungalow suffered severe damages.

The 4, Vikramaditya Marg government bungalow was allotted to Akhilesh Yadav in the capacity of a former CM of the state. The bungalow had to be vacated after orders from the Supreme Court. After the visuals of alleged rampage inside the bungalow came into media, a high level inquiry was ordered into the incident.

According to the report, the first floor of the bungalow was constructed by Akhilesh Yadav himself. Also, a lot of other work on the ground floor was undertaken by Yadav. Meanwhile, the damages done to the bungalow have also been video-graphed during the probe.

A notice could soon be served to Samajwadi Party National President Akhilesh Yadav for the recovery of the estimated cost of 10 lakh rupees for the damages.

Reacting to the development, SP spokesperson Sunil Singh Sajan said, "The government has stooped to a new low. They are coming out with reports just to malign the image of former CM. The BJP government is rattled by the SP-BSP alliance and the loss in bypoll. Hence, they are desperate to hamper Yadav's image."

A bench headed by Justice Ranjan Gogoi quashed the law, which entitled former chief ministers to retain government bungalows for a lifetime, ruling that granting further privilege violates Right to Equality under Article 14.

“The Chief Minister, once he or she demits the office, is at par with the common citizen, though by virtue of the office held, he or she may be entitled to security and other protocols. But allotment of government bungalow, to be occupied during his or lifetime, would not be guided by the constitutional principle of equality,” noted the bench.