JUDGMENT

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder vide order dated 27.06.2017 (Annexure-10), the representation filed by the petitioner dated 17.03.2017 in pursuance to the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Bokaro in Civil (Misc.) Appeal No.13 of 2016 has been rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been allotted the quarter in pursuance to the lease of agreement dated 21st day of January 2002 (Annexure-4) wherein certain terms and conditions have been incorporated, one of the conditions is that there will be no alteration or addition in the construction already made, save and except, the permission of the authority and in case of violation of the said terms and conditions the lease would be liable for termination as would be evident from condition No.2(xiii) to the lease of agreement (page 60).

3. The petitioner has constructed a garage initially against which the objection has been made by the competent authority but the same has been regularized by the competent authority considering that the extension was made within the permissible limit but again construction has been made, but this time two rooms have been constructed over the roof of the first floor and therefore, a proceeding has been initiated by the authority under the provision of sub-section (2) of Section 5(A) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 wherein the order has been passed for removal of the said construction in the said quarter and with a direction to pay sum of Rs.10,000/- only as a cost of removal, against which the appeal has been preferred before the Principal District Judge, Bokaro being Civil (Misc.) Appeal No.13 of 2016 which was disposed of vide order dated 09th January, 2017 with a observation that it will be open for the petitioner to make application before the competent authority for regularization of the deviation to be permissible.

4. In pursuance to the said observation the petitioner has made representation on 17.03.2017 (Annexure-9) which has been dealt with by the authority vide order dated 27.06.2017 by rejecting it.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted while assailing the aforesaid order that the others have been allowed to make construction which is also not within the permissible limit but when he has made construction over the quarter, the same has been objected against which a proceeding has been initiated therefore, the petitioner has been subjected to hostile discrimination which is directly in the teeth of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

6. Mr. Vijay Kant Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the Bokaro Steel Limited has submitted by referring to the impugned order passed by the appellate forum whereby and whereunder the appeal has been dismissed on merit, however, with a liberty that if the condonation of construction already made is permissible, the same can be considered by the authority and in the light of the same when the petitioner has made an application, the same has been dismissed, as such, the same suffers from no infirmity.

7. So far as the contention of the petitioner that he has been subjected to hostile discrimination, his argument is that the Article 14 envisages positive equality and not the negative equality, therefore, the said argument is not worth to be considered.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions, it is evident that the petitioner has made construction of two rooms over the first floor of quarter which has been allotted in favour of the petitioner by virtue of an agreement, as referred, which contains a condition of making no construction as would be evident from Clause 2(xiii) of the agreement.

9. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that the construction has been made contrary to the terms and conditions of the agreement which is within the permiss