IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7626 of 2010 1. RANDHIR KUMAR SINGH, S/O LATE RAMADHAR SINGH, R/O VILLAGE- DAHAUR, P.S. BARH, DISTRICT- PATNA, PRESENTLY POSTED AS TRACER (ANUREKHAK) CENTRAL CIRCLE, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT,PATNA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY , ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT,BIHAR,PATNA. 3. THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT,BIHAR,PATNA. 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT,BIHAR,PATNA. 5. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,CENTRAL CIRCLE, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT,CHHAJJU BAG,PATNA. ------------ 3. 10.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. This Court is not persuaded to grant any indulgence to the State for filing a counter affidavit in a writ petition with regard to a domestic residence, copy of which has been served in the office of the Advocate General on 29.4.2010, the second copy for the benefit of the State for filing of the counter affidavit. It is apparent from Anenxure-1 that the petitioner by order dated 23.11.2009, passed by the Superintending Engineer, Central Circle, Road Construction Department Chhajju Bag, Patna was allotted a residential accommodation at Danapur-Bankipur Road (Golghar Circle) consequent to the superannuation of the earlier incumbent Sri Shashi Bhushan Prasad Sinha. The petitioner claims that he settled down in the - 2 - quarter but suddenly an order dated 24.4.2010 was issued by the same Superintending Engineer cancelling the allotment dated 23.11.2009 with immediate effect and allotted him another residence at C/1 Mithapur, Patna. Learned counsel for the State submits that the allotment made to the petitioner relates to the pool of the Building Construction Department and therefore the order of cancellation was passed, allotting another residence simultaneously. Counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the writ application, the Building Construction Department has already ousted the petitioner. He has challenged the same in another writ application in C.W.J.C. No. 9572 of 2010. The petitioner is interested in a residential accommodation and he apprehends more trouble even in possession of the new quarter allegedly allotted unless he has the protection of this Court. The apprehension is based on the past conduct of the respondents. This Court is satisfied that the order dated 24.4.2010 is completely arbitrary. It contains no reasons. The reasons sought to be urged on behalf of the State to explain the recitals contained in the order impugned cannot be accepted and the order has to be tested on the recitals contained. - 3 - Be that as it may, the impugned order itself states that quarter No. C/1 Mithapur, Patna has been allotted to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it is in an extremely dilapidated condition and unsafe for human habitation from the point of view of safety. Let the petitioner appear with a copy of the present order before the Superintending Engineering concerned who is directed to forthwith proceed to rectify quarter No. C/1 Mithapur, Patna and ensure by proper certification that it was safe for human habitation. Any accident in the premises attributable to the premises being unsafe for human habitation in all its civil and criminal consequences will rest on the Superintending Engineer. If he is of the opinion otherwise he shall forthwith allot other alternative official accommodation to the petitioner. Let this order be complied within a maximum period of one month. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)