The competent authority has the discretion to make subjective decisions based on threat perception and government accommodation, and the scope of judicial review in such matters is limited.

ALI MOHAMMAD MAGREY, J.

1. Since common question of facts as well as law is the subject matter of both the writ petitions, being OWP Nos. 2224/2015 and 1165/2015, therefore, I propose to decide the same by a common order.

2. The case of the petitioner is that, being a political activist, he and his other family members were threatened of dire consequences by the militants. Therefore, the petitioner, as stated, approached the competent authority for the allotment of accommodation in some protected area. This request of his was considered and appreciated by the competent authority vide Government order No. 52-Est of 2010 dated 26th of March, 2010, wherein his residential accommodation was shown in Set No. W-4 Tulsi Bagh, Srinagar. Thereafter, the petitioner, apprehending that he may be evicted from the said Government accommodation, filed a writ petition, being OWP No. 1040/2015. This Court, on consideration of the matter and in terms of judgment dated 23rd of June, 2015, disposed of the said writ petition in the following terms:

"Accordingly, I deem it proper to direct the official respondents to examine any consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the averments made in the writ petition within a period of six weeks, which period shall begin from the date a certified copy is served on the competent authority and to accord the same treatment to him as has been given to the similarly situated persons and if they find that there is any real threat perception to the life and liberty of the petitioner, they shall allow him to continue to use the said accommodation in accordance with the rules. Till such decision is taken, the petitioner shall not be evicted and be allowed to retain the aforesaid accommodation."

However, as stated, the said accommodation allotted to the petitioner was allotted to some other person by the respondents, constraining the petitioner to file another writ petition, being OWP No. 1165/2015, seeking a direction in the name of the respondents to handover the possession of the Government accommodation, i. e. Set No. W-4 Tulsi Bagh, to him. On consideration of the matter, this Court, in terms of order dated 10th of July, 2015, directed as under:

"In the said background respondents are directed to put back petitioner in the premises allotted where from he has been evicted and handover the goods like electronics taken away from petitioner, allow him to occupy the premises, till decision in terms of writ court order 23rd Jun 2015."

In pursuance of the aforesaid directions of this Court, the respondents have passed an order bearing No. 41 of 2015 dated 2nd of July, 2015, whereby the claim of the petitioner has been considered and found devoid of any merit, as such, rejected. This rejection order passed by the respondents has been called in question by the petitioner in the instant petition, wherein he has sought the indulgence of this Court in granting him the following relief(s):

A. A Writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned order No. 41 of 2015 dated 2nd of July, 2015, passed by the respondent No. 4;

B. A Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to handover the possession of the government accommodation namely set No. W4 at Tulsibagh which has been temporarily occupied by some other person without any allotment order;

C. A Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondent No. 3 to handover the belongings/ goods of the petitioner which include TV, Refrigerator, Washing Machine, Furnishing and other utensils forthwith.

OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE

D. A Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to make alternate arrangement in favour of the petitioner in terms of the accommodation him in any other public premises at Tulsibagh Srinagar. "

3. The respondents, in their objections filed in opposition to the writ petition, have stated that the petitioner has not come before the Court with clean hands as, on the one hand, he has claimed that there i