26.3.2009 Present: Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A. G. and Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. A.G. for respondents. CWP(T) 3686/2008 (OA(D) No. 147/96 The petitioner has prayed for the following relief: “i) that the orders of rejection dated 18.4.1996 passed by the respondent No.3 vide Anenxure A-9, be quashed and set aside; ii) that the action of the respondent Department/respondent state in making allotments on department wise basis, separately, without making allotments by putting on the accommodations, except on Rule 19 of the Rules, into a general/common pool may be declared illegal, arbitraty and ultravires of the Constitution of India. iii) that the respondents may be directed to make allotment to the applicant’s wife as per Rule 8 (3) of the House Allotment Rules vide Annexure A-4. iv) that the respondents may be directed to charge normal rent, from the applicant’s wife, after the allotment as per Rule 8(3) of the said Rules.” In the reply, the respondents have clarified that the petitioner who was working in the Department of HPPWD, was allotted residential accommodation which was exclusively meant for PWD officers. The acommodation was not from the general pool, hence, under the House Allotment Rules, the accommodation could not have been transferred in the name of his wife, who admittedly was employed with another Department of the State. The matter, in any event, pertains to the year 1994. With the passage of time, the present petition has become infructuous. Disposed of as such. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. March 26, 2009 (rana)