BARADAKANTA MISHRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution asking for a direction to the opposite party not to proceed with eviction of Petitioner from a Government quarters which had once been allotted to him and the allotment whereof had long since been cancelled.

(2.) ON 25th of March, 1975, notice of admission and hearing was given and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the opposite party undertook to file its counter affidavit by 31st of March, 1975. After the counter affidavit was filed, the records of a connected Title Suit referred to in the writ application were sent for. At the instance of the Petitioner, the records of a criminal case instituted by him as also the papers relating to allotment of the quarters in question in favour of Petitioner were called for and all the records have been made available. From the pleadings and the records, the following facts which appear to be relevant for disposal of the writ application are found.

(3.) WE have already referred to the assertion in the counter affidavit that opposite party expected the Petitioner to vacate possession as undertaken by him on different occasions and had, keeping his status as a superior judicial officer in view, not interfered with him at any time. This explanation seems to have been advanced to cover to their own laches and to explain away their conduct of inaction. There have been many occasions when the demand for vacant possession has been enforced with such strictness in case of others as the Rules permit. In the instant case, however, that amount of strictness which the problem of deficient official accommodation at Bhubaneswar should warrant has not been shown.