ORDER P.V. Dixit, C.J. The Petitioner in this case seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing an order made by the Collector, Morena, on 14th July 1964, u/s 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation (Requisition) Act, 1948, requisitioning a portion of a house belonging to him and situated in Morena. The order runs as follows: In exercise of the power conferred on me, u/s 3 of the M.P. Accommodation (Requisition) Act, 1948, by the State Government vide Notification No. 2066 /II-A (3) dated 3rd July 1959, Asadha 12, 1881, u/s 14 of the Act, I, J.N. Kaul, Collector, District Morena, hereby requisition the portion of the house of Shri Raj Mai Surana of Morena situated near the old Bus Stand, which was previously occupied by Shri G.D. Gore Deputy Collector, Morena, consisting of three rooms, courtyard, latrine, on the ground floor, terrace, one room and tin shed on the terrace, to the west of which are Police Line and to the south is S.A. F., Hospital, Morena, for the residence of Shri D.V. Bhatnagar, District Publicity Officer, Morena. I further direct that possession of the said portion of the house be delivered to Shri D. v. Bhatnagar, District Publicity Officer, Morena, on 1-8-1964. After the making of this order, the Petitioner made a representation to the Collector for vacating the order. While rejecting this representation, the Collector extended the time for delivery of possession of the requisitioned premises till 12th August 1964. A writ of certiorari has also been sought for quashing the order of the Collector rejecting the Petitioner's representation. In the petition, the applicant has questioned the validity of the Collector's order dated the 14th July, 1964 on the grounds that the Act infringes Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution and is, therefore, ultra vires; and that the impugned order was passed by the Collector on account of prejudice and bias against him. In view of the decision of a Full Beach in Jagdish Narain Babulal Jaiswal Vs. Collector and Others, , Shri Dabir, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, did not rightly press the objection about the vires of the Act. In view of the decision of a Full Beach in Jagdish Narain Babulal Jaiswal Vs. Collector and Others, , Shri Dabir, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, did not rightly press the objection about the vires of the Act. The only contention he advanced before us was that the requisitioning order did not at all indicate whether before passing that order the Collector had, as required by Section 3(1) of the Act, formed the opinion that it was necessary to requisition the accommodation in question for a public purpose. It was said that the return filed on behalf of the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 also did not show that before making the impugned order the Collector had formed an opinion as to the necessity for requisitioning the accommodation; and that the requisitioning of a portion of the house for the residence of Shri Bhatnagar, District Publicity Officer of Morena who was already occupying a Government quarter, only indicated that the Collector did not act bona fide. To support his argument, Learned Counsel relied on the decision in H.N. Malak v. State 1961 MPLJ 125 (M P No. 255 of 1960 decided on 5th July 1961.). In our judgment, there is no force in this petition and it must be dismissed. It is no doubt true that the condition precedent to the making of an order u/s 3(1) of the Act is the formation of opinion by the Collector that it is necessary to requisition the accommodation in question for the purposes mentioned in Section 2(d) of the Act. The opinion that the Collector or the State Government forms on the necessity for requisitioning is a subjective opinion and not an opinion subject to objective test. This has been made very clear in the decision in Malak's case (supra), relied on by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The opinion that the Collector or the State Government forms on the necessity for requisitioning is a subjective opinion and not an opinion subject to objective test. This has been made very clear in the decision in Malak's case (supra), relied on by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. In that case, it has also been pointed out that Section 3(1) of the Act does not lay down that the purpose for which the property is being requisitioned must be set out in the order; that it is no doubt desirable to do so, but if the recital of the formation of opinion and the purpose for which the property has been requisitioned is not to be found in the order, then it does not follow that there was no formation of opinion before the order in question was passed or that the property was not requisitioned for a public purpose; and that where there is no such recital in the order requisitioning the property the authority making the order must satisfy the Court by evidence aliunde that the authority did form the opinion necessary u/s 3(1) of the Act. Now, in the present case, the impugned order no doubt does not contain a recital about the formation of opinion by the Collector that it was necessary to requisition a portion of the Petitioner's house for a 'public purpose' as defined in Section 2(d) of the Act, which includes providing accommodation for the residence of a person holding office of profit under the State Government. But from the return filed on behalf of the Respondents Nos. But from the return filed on behalf of the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, it is abundantly plain that it became necessary to requisition a portion of the Petitioner's house, which was in the occupation of one Shri Gore, Deputy Collector, Morena, but had fallen vacant on account of his transfer, because when Shri Ghorpade, who had been transferred to Morena, asked the Petitioner to let out the accommodation to him, the Petitioner refused to do so and Shri Ghorpade was not able to find any other private or Government accommodation in the town of Morena; and that Shri Ghorpade, therefore, made an application to the Collector stating that the Petitioner was not willing to let out to him the portion vacated by Shri Gore, that he was not able to find any private accommodation in Morena, that he was a married man having a large family, that the house in the occupation of Shri Bhatnagar, District Publicity Officer, should be allotted to him, that the portion of the house vacated by Shri Gore should be requisitioned, and that Shri Bhatnager was a widower living all by himself and his children were in school in Gwalior and, therefore, he should be asked to occupy the requisitioned portion. On receipt of this application of Shri Ghorpade, the Collector considered the application and then passed an order on 13th July 1964 that the portion of the Petitioner's house vacated by Shri Gore should be requisitioned for the residence of Shri Bhatnagar and that Shri Ghorpade should be allotted the house which was in the occupation of Shri Bhatnagar. In his order (Annexure R /3 to the return) the Collector stated inter alia that- Shri Surana in spite of his professions to the contrary is not inclined to let out the building to a Govt, servant. Since no other private or Govt, owned accommodation is available, the portion of Shri Surana's house which was in the occupation of Shri G.D. Gore, Dy. Collector till 1st June 1964 and has been lying vacant since then, shall have to be requisitioned u/s 3 of the M.F. Accommodation (Requisition) Act, 1948. This house shall be requisitioned for Shri D. v. Bhatnagar, Distt. Publicity Officer, who has voluntarily agreed to vacate the Govt. H' Type quarter located in the Officers Colony if private accommodation is secured for him. This house shall be requisitioned for Shri D. v. Bhatnagar, Distt. Publicity Officer, who has voluntarily agreed to vacate the Govt. H' Type quarter located in the Officers Colony if private accommodation is secured for him. ..After possession of Shri Rajmal Surana's house is obtained by Shri Bhatnagar an order may separately issue allotting the 'H' type quarter to Shri Ghorpade occupied by Shri Bhatnagar at present. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner laid much stress on the circumstance that the requisitioning was for the residence of Shri Bhatnagar who was already occupying a Govt, quarter and not for Shri Ghorpade to show that there was no necessity at all for requisitioning the accommodation in question and that the order passed by Collector was not bona fide. This suggestion is unsubstantial. The necessity for requisitioning arose because there was no accommodation available for the residence of a Deputy Collector, and not because Shri Bhatnagar was at that time not finding, or lodged in, any accommodation. That necessity having been established according to the opinion formed by the Collector, it made no difference whatsoever whether after requisitioning the accommodation it was occupied by Shri Bhatnagar or by Shri Ghorpade. The question whether Shri Ghorpade should occupy the Government quarter, which was then in occupation of Shri Bhatnagar, and Shri Bhatnagar should go in the requisitioned accommodation, or whether Shri Ghorpade should occupy the requisitioned portion of the Petitioner's house, was an internal matter between the Collector and his deputies. It has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the order made u/s 3(1) of the Act. Learned Counsel then urged that there was nothing to indicate that the Collector made due enquiry about all available accommodation before making the impugned order. Section 3(1) of the Act itself does not contemplate the holding of any enquiry for the formation of opinion as to the necessity of requisitioning an accommodation for a public purpose. No doubt, as observed by a Division in Manohar v. Dy. Commr., Yeotmal 1951 N L J 346 : A I R 1951 Nag. 33 : I L R 1951 Nag. 791, it is desirable for the requisitioning authority to make due enquiries about all available accommodation and to requisition the occupied premises only in the last resort. No doubt, as observed by a Division in Manohar v. Dy. Commr., Yeotmal 1951 N L J 346 : A I R 1951 Nag. 33 : I L R 1951 Nag. 791, it is desirable for the requisitioning authority to make due enquiries about all available accommodation and to requisition the occupied premises only in the last resort. But as pointed out in that very case, the failure of the requisitioning authority to make such enquiry does not by itself show that the order was not bona fide or that the condition precedent to the making of an order u/s 3(1) did not exist. In the order, which was passed on 13th July, 1964, the Collector expressly said that- Since no other private or Govt, owned accommodation is available, the portion of Shri Surana's house which was in the occupation of Shri G.D. Gore...shall have to be requisitioned. This shows that the requisitioning of the accommodation in question was only as a last resort. In our view, there is no ground on which the impugned order of the Collector can be assailed. Before leaving this case, we must record our surprise and disapprobation of the failure of the Collector to file a return to the petition supported by an affidavit. We have before us only a return filed jointly on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh and the Collector and an affidavit filed by Shri Mishra, Additional District Magistrate of Morena. During the course of hearing, we directed the Collector to file an affidavit stating that he had formed the opinion requisite for the making of the impugned order u/s 3(1) of the Act; and he has now filed one. But we must say that in this case, when it was alleged by the Petitioner that Collector did not form any opinion about the necessity for requisitioning the accommodation in question and that the order passed by him was mala fide, it was the duty of the Collector to file a return and an affidavit in the very beginning in answer to these allegations. An idea seems to prevail in the minds of many Government servants that when any Government Officer is made a Respondent party to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, a return and an affidavit can be filed by any officer, subordinate or superior, whether connected or not with the matter raised in the petition. An idea seems to prevail in the minds of many Government servants that when any Government Officer is made a Respondent party to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, a return and an affidavit can be filed by any officer, subordinate or superior, whether connected or not with the matter raised in the petition. It is altogether a wrong notion. This Court expects any Government Officer, who is made an opponent party to proceedings under Article 226, to file his own return supported by his own affidavit. This is very necessary when the suppliant questions the validity of an order passed by a Government Officer on grounds such as mala fides, failure to form the requisite opinion or satisfaction before the making of the order, or omission to consider matters which the officer was statutorily required to take into account before making the order. In such a case, the affidavit and return must be of the person responsible for making the impugned order, and the officer cannot pick out any subordinate officer of his to swear to anything in justification of an order made by himself. We hope that such a lapse will not occur in future on the part of any officer who is made an opponent party in proceedings under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution. For these reasons, this petition is dismissed with costs of the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Counsel's fee is fixed at Rs. 75. The outstanding amount of security deposit, if any after deduction of costs, shall be refunded to the Petitioner. Final Result : Dismissed