1 IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5489 of 2008 1.Union of India & Anr. ...Petitioners vs. Rakesh D.Tiwari. ...Respondent AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO.512 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5489 of 2008 1.Union of India & Anr. ...Petitioners vs. Rakesh D.Tiwari. ...Respondent --- Mr.Sureshkumar, for Petitioners. Mr.Ramesh Ramamurthy & Saikumar, for Respondent. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED: 17TH FEBRUARY,2010 2 P.C.: 1. This petition is not on board for final hearing, but by consent of parties it is taken on board. 2. The relevant facts for deciding this petition are that the Respondent had filed Original application no.471 of 2007 before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the order dated 13.8.2007. By that order the Respondent was directed to vacate the Government accommodation which he was occupying, as the allotment of that accommodation in his favour was cancelled. That original application was decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal by its order dated 29.2.2008. The original application was allowed. The order cancelling allotment of the quarter in favour of Respondent was set aside. The order was set aside for several reasons but one of the reasons given by the Tribunal was that the allotment has been cancelled without issuing show cause notice. That order was challenged 3 in this petition. This petition was admitted for final hearing by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 17.10.2008. The Government was granted liberty to issue fresh show cause notice for vacation of the quarter by order dated 17.10.2008. Admitted position is that thereafter a show cause notice was issued by the Authorities and order of cancellation of allotment and vacation of quarter was made in the month of May,2009 and that order has also been implemented, and the respondent has vacated the Government accommodation. It is also common ground that though the order was made in the month of May,2009 for cancellation of allotment, to this date that has not been challenged by the Respondent before any Court or Tribunal. In these circumstances, therefore, we put it to the learned Counsel appearing for Respondent that because of the subsequent order of cancellation of allotment made by the petitioners and the acceptance of that order by the respondent, this petition renders infructuous, the learned Counsel submitted that the order of vacation and cancellation of allotment was 4 made because of the liberty granted by this Court by order dated 17.10.2008, and therefore, the order of vacation made during the pendency of the petition is subject to the result of this petition, and therefore, this petition has not become infructuous. 3. It is to be seen that by order dated 29.2.2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Central Administrative Tribunal has set aside order dated 13.8.2007. By that order, the allotment of Government accommodation to the respondent was set aside. Even if the petitioner had not challenged that order in this Court, still as the accommodation belongs to the petitioner, the petitioner was always free to initiate fresh proceedings for cancellation of allotment and for eviction. Therefore, in our opinion, the learned Counsel appearing for Respondent is not right in submitting that the order subsequently made by the petitioner of cancellation of allotment is only because of the liberty granted by interim order of this Court. In our opinion, as the owner of the 5 accommodation and as the employer of the Respondent, the Petitioners has always power to initiate proceedings for cancellation of allotment and eviction of the petitioner, and if such an order is made and if according to the respondent that order is invalid for any reason including the reason that the order is contrary to the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, then it was for the Respondent to challenge that order before the appropriate Court or Tribunal. The Respondent did not challenge that order. The conduct of the Respondent of not challenging that order shows that the Respondent accepted that order. Not only that he has accepted the order but he has also complied with the order and vacated the premises. In our opinion, therefore, because of the subsequent order and implementation of that order, no useful purpose will be served by keeping this petition pending, as no useful purpose will be served by judging the validity or otherwise of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, and it would have been necessary if the subsequent order of eviction 6 would have been challenged by the Respondent in some Court of law. The petition, therefore, is disposed of. No order as to costs. In view of the aforesaid order, the civil application is also disposed of. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (A.R.JOSHI,J.)