RAVINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks quashing and setting-aside of the office communications dtd. 5/1/2024 (annexure P-3) and 16/3/2024 (annexure P-6) whereby Set No.28 GF, Dispensary Block, Type-II, Barnus Court, Shimla was allotted in favour of respondent No.3.

(2.) The case

(3.) Respondents No.1 and 2 in their reply have defended the allotment of accommodation in question to respondent No.3. Their main stand is that government accommodation in question was allotted by respondent No.1 to respondent No.3 under Rule 8(7) of Allotment Rules, 1994 after following due process and procedure prescribed for out of turn allotment in view of exigency of service. Learned Advocate General during course of hearing submitted that respondents have the discretion to allot any accommodation on out of turn basis in exigency of service in terms of the Allotment Rules 1994; It is in exercise of said power that accommodation in question had been allotted to respondent No.3. It was also submitted that such exercise of power cannot be questi ned under judicial review under Article 226 of Constitution of India. It was further submitted that petitioner was already in possession of a government accommodation. He had only desired a change in the allotted accommodation whereas the respondent No.3 had been residing in a rented accommodation. The accommodation in question therefore was justly allotted to respondent No.3. The petitioner did not have any vested rig t for a particular accommodation. In support of the submissions, reliance was placed upon Madhu Kashyap versus State of H.P.[ CWP No.8027 of 2022, decided on 10/3/2023] Respondent No.3 has filed his separate reply justifying the allotment of Set No.28 GF in his favour projecting adjerence to due process and procedure in allotting him the government accommodation and also on the count that the petitioner was only seeking better accommodation by way of change whereas respondent No.3 was not in occupation of any government accommodation.