WPMS No.1154 of 2003 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. M. C. Pande, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H. M. Raturi, the learned Standing Counsel for the State. The petitioner was working as a Camp Assistant in the office of the District Basic Education Officer, Nainital and was allotted a residential accommodation @ Rs.22/- per month in a primary school, Tallital, Nainital vide an order dated 18th March, 1999. Pursuant to the allotment order, the petitioner applied for telephone, water & electricity connection, which was granted upon a “no objection certificate” being granted by the Education Department. In paragraph 6 of the writ petition, it has been asserted that apart from the petitioner, 19 other persons have been allotted residential accommodation in the said primary school premises. It transpires that some complaint was given by one Mukhtar Khan against the petitioner alleging that on account of the allotment of the accommodation, the students of the school are facing problems and that proper education is not being carried out. Based on the said complaint, three enquiries were initiated one after the other and, in all the three enquiries, the complaint was found to be baseless. It was found that the allotment of the premises did not hamper the education in the primary school. Inspite of such reports, respondent no.3 issued a notice dated 12th November, 2003 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition) directing the petitioner to vacate the premises within three days. This notice was based on the order of the District Magistrate dated 06th November, 2003 (Annexure-14 to the writ petition). The petitioner, being aggrieved by this, has filed the present writ petition. The District Basic Education Officer has filed a short counter affidavit admitting the entire contents of the writ petition, namely, that a complaint was made by one person and that on the basis of the said complaint, three enquires were initiated. It has also been admitted in paragraph 15 of the short counter affidavit that apart from the petitioner, 19 other persons were allotted the residential accommodation in the school premises and they are residing in the premises. In the light of the aforesaid, the court finds that the impugned order cannot be sustained. In the first instance when an allotment order has been made validly in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be evicted unless and until the allotment order is cancelled and a proper notice for cancellation of the allotment order is given to that person as well as an 2 opportunity is provided. The District Magistrate in its order directed the District Basic Education Officer Officer to get the quarter of the petitioner vacated inspite of observing that he holds a valid allotment order. The court is of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be forced to vacate the premises till such time as an allotment order stands in his name. In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned order of the District Magistrate dated 06th November, 2003 as well as the consequential order of the District Basic Education Officer dated 12.11.2003 directing the petitioner to vacate the premises cannot be sustained and are quashed. The writ petition is allowed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 11.11.2011 LSR