(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges an order dated 16th Oct. 1978 (Annexure-9), passed by the Authorised Officer, Seoni, under Section 39 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, asking the petitioner to give his option for allotment of a house situated on Station Road, Seoni, belonging to the petitioner, in favour of Shri S. D. Mudgal, District Education Officer, or Shri Pandey, Assistant Settlement Officer.
(2.) The house was in occupation of one Shri G. K. Shrivastava who was Deputy Collector and Authorised Officer. Shri Shrivastava was transferred from Seoni. The petitioner, therefore on 11th Aug. 1978, gave information as required by Section 39 (1) of the Act to the Authorised Officer that the house was likely to fall vacant and that the petitioner needed it for his personal residence. A notice was issued to the petitioner by the Authorised Officer on 4th Sept. 1978 which was received by the petitioner on 6th Sept. 1978 requiring him to appear on 7th Sept. 1978 in connection with the enquiry envisaged under the first proviso to Section 39 (2) for satisfaction of the Authorised Officer that the accommodation was really needed by the petitioner. On 5th Oct. 1978, the Authorised Officer held against the petitioner that his need was not genuine. On 6th Oct. 1978, an allotment order was issued in favour of Shri K. P. Dixit, Deputy Collector; but as he was allotted another accommodation, the Authorised Officer issued the impugned order dated 16th Oct. 1978.
(3.) The argument of Miss Kanti Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the enquiry under the first proviso to Section 39 (2) of the Act must begin within 15 days from the date of receipt of the information given by the landlord that the house has fallen vacant or is likely to fall vacant and that after the expiry of fifteen days from the date of the information the Authorised Officer loses jurisdiction to commence an enquiry or to take any action for allotment of the house. The learned counsel relies upon Sub-section (3) of Section 39.