By the Court.—The petitioner is an Armed Forces Personnel. He has been called upon to vacate the premises, that he was occupying on his regular posting, as he has now proceeded on study leave. The petitioner claims retention of the same accommodation on the ground that the policy, as formulated by the respondents on 30.1.2015 read with the letter dated 27.5.2015, cannot be applied to forcibly compel the petitioner to give up the said accommodation that was allotted to him in 2014. He is resisting the vacation of the said premises questioning the correctness of the policy and also its incorrect application by the Station Headquarters at Lucknow.

2. In order to compel the petitioner to vacate the premises, the respondents initiated proceedings by issuing a Notice under The Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, during the pendency of the present writ petition. The Estate Officer, under the said provisions, has proceeded to hear the petitioner and has ultimately passed an order directing his eviction on 26.10.2015. This order has been brought on record by the respondents through the second Supplementary-Counter-Affidavit.

3. The petitioner contends that the Station Headquarters, at the local level have on their own, proceeded to alter the policy implementation to the disadvantage of the petitioner inasmuch as the provisions of the policy dated 30.1.2015 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) clearly envisages that an Officer, who proceeds on study leave, has to be provided with alternate Hired Accommodation or Accommodation on Rent Reimbursement basis or can avail the facility of House Rent Allowance. The policy also desires the vacation of the premises in occupation as further retention of the same according to the said policy beyond a period of 10 days would not be permissible. It is in this background that the petitioner challenged the order issued by the respondents on 14.8.2015 contending that firstly the policy is not in conformity with the benefits to which an Officer proceeding on study leave, is entitled; and, secondly, the order calling upon the petitioner to vacate the accommodation was also unjust.

4. The writ petition was entertained and a counter-affidavit was invited upon which a counter-affidavit was filed to which a rejoinder-affidavit has been filed. On the matter, being heard on previous occasions, a supplementary-counter-affidavit and a second supplementary-counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents to which a response has also been filed by the petitioner.

5. While passing the orders, we had made it clear in the order dated 13.10.2015 to inform the Court as to how the policy was sought to be implemented as the documents, that had been brought on record, did not indicate any material to gather an opinion as to whether any effort was made to hire any accommodation for the petitioner or to provide accommodation on rent reimbursement basis. It is thereafter that the supplementary-counter-affidavit and second supplementary-counter-affidavit has been filed bringing on record the deliberations that were undertaken in this respect as also the proceedings that was undertaken under the Public Premises Act, 1971.

6. In view of the developments that have taken place during the pendency of the writ petition, it would be appropriate to deal with the said issue as the question now involved is also the action already taken under the 1971 Act during the pendency of the writ petition together with the challenge raised to the policy and it’s implementation.

7. We had called upon the learned Counsel for the respondents and the petitioner, who has appeared in person, to address us on these issues.

8. Sri Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, has urged that once an order has been passed under the 1971 Act, then the petitioner has a remedy of filing an appeal under the provisions of Section 9 of the said Act before the learned District Judge where the appellate of