P. K. MOHANTY, J. ( 1 ) THE aforesaid two writ petitions are by petitioner Kumar Nayak against the opposite parties and involves common question of law and facts and therefore, with the agreement and consent of the learned counsel for the parties are heard and disposed of by this common order. ( 2 ) IN O. J. C. No. 92 of 1997, the petitioner assails the order rejecting his application for impletion as a party in proceedings under Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter called 'the Act') in respect of Stall No. 183 in Ispat Market, Rourkela. In O. J. C. No. 7779 of 1997, the petitioner challenges the action of the opposite parties, in particular opp. party No. 5, on the alleged locking up of the said shop, Stall No. 183 thereby paralysing his business establishment. ( 3 ) THE petitioner claims that he was the occupant of stall No. 183 in Ispat Market. Rourkela since last eight years and was carrying on his business without any interference from any corner. On 11-11-96, the petitioner got a notice under Section 5 (1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 to vacate the said shop within 15 days in terms of the order dated 30-10-95 in R. P. Case No. 3036 of 1992. It is alleged that the order dated 30-10-96 was passed behind the back of the petitioner and on getting the notice, the petitioner filed J. C. No. 92 of 1997 and obtained interim stay of the proceedings on condition that he would deposit a sum of Rs. 5000/- with the Registrar of this Court within seven days. The petitioner had also deposited the amount. It is alleged that when the petitioner was in peaceful possession and occupation of the shop No. 183, on 8-4-97 Sri P. C. Bhol, A. S. I. of Sector-19 Police Station, O. P. No. 5 came to the stall in absence of the petitioner and directed for locking of the stall. The petitioner on hearing the incident met opp. party No. 4 narrated the entire incident and delivered a copy of the order of this Court. But, however, opp. party No. 4 did not care for the order of this Court dated 9-1-97 in O. J. C. No. 92 of 1997 and did not allow him to open the shop. The petitioner also approached opp. party No. 4 narrated the entire incident and delivered a copy of the order of this Court. But, however, opp. party No. 4 did not care for the order of this Court dated 9-1-97 in O. J. C. No. 92 of 1997 and did not allow him to open the shop. The petitioner also approached opp. party No. 3 and made a similar representation on 21-4-97 and since the stall is not being opened, the petitioner is suffering immense loss. It is therefore alleged that even though the eviction proceedings initiated in P. P. Case No. 3038 of 1992 has been stayed, by this Court by order dated 9-1-97. opp. party No. 5 has violated the said order in putting a lock in the stall. It is thus alleged that the action of opp. parties 3, 4 and 5 in not allowing opening of the shop, locked by opp. party No. 5 is illegal and contemptuous and they should be therefore proceeded against and the petitioner should be adequately compensated. ( 4 ) ON issuance of notice, opp. party No. 5 has filed a return. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that on 14-4-97 one Smt. Suryamani Swain reported in Sector-19 Police Station alleging that one Binaya Pradhan of shop No. 14 had put up lock in the said shop and since it was a non-cognizable case and of civil in nature, station diary entry No. 299 dated 14-4-97 was made and the deponent was directed to enquire into the matter and to submit a Prosecution Report and Counter Prosecution Report against the parties. The Station Diary Entry revealed that shop No. 183 allotted to one Sadasiva Swain, the husband of Smt. Suryamani Swain and after the death of her husband, the legal heir certificate etc. were submitted before the Estate Officer but however one Binaya Pradhan, a friend of the petitioner had put up a lock in the said shop. It also transpires from the Station Diary that one Kumar Nayak (the petitioner) was looking after the shop No. 183. After the death of Sadasiva Swain, P. P. Case No. 3038 of 1992 was started against Ranjan Kumar Swain and others, who were found in occupation of the shop room and they were directed to vacate the shop vide order dated 30-10-95 passed in P. P. Case No. 3038 of 1992. After the death of Sadasiva Swain, P. P. Case No. 3038 of 1992 was started against Ranjan Kumar Swain and others, who were found in occupation of the shop room and they were directed to vacate the shop vide order dated 30-10-95 passed in P. P. Case No. 3038 of 1992. The deponent enquired into the matter and submitted a Prosecution Report under Section 107 Cr. P. C. vide Non F. I. R. Case No. 64 of 1997 describing Suryamani Swain and others as first party and Kumar Naik and Binaya Pradhan as second party. A counter Prosecution Report had been lodged under Section 107, Cr. P. C. vide Non-F. I. R. Case No. 65 of 1997 describing Kumar Naik and others as first party and Suryamani Swain and others as second party. The allegation that the deponent opp. party No. 5 went to the stall on 8-4-97 in absence of the petitioner and directed for locking up of the stall have been strongly denied. It is stated that on 14-4-97 after the complaint was lodged by Suryamain Swain and Station Diary Entry was made, opp. party No. 5 being entrusted with the enquiry went to the spot but by that time both the parties had put their respective locks in the said shop No. 183. Since the matter was civil in nature and there was every likelihood of breach of peace in the locality, both the case and counter case have been started against the parties. The allegation that Binaya Kumar Pradhan brought to the notice of this deponent about the order of this Court has been denied. A copy of the Station Dairy Entry has been annexed as Annexure A/5. ( 5 ) THE petitioner however has filed an application being Misc. Case No. 10092 of 1997 in O. J. C. No. 7779 of 1997 for withdrawal of the writ petition on the ground that the matter has reached a mutual settlement and the concerned police personnel have opened up the business premises which was the subject-matter of dispute and as such, the matter has come to an end and there is no necessity of proceeding with the writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner in O. J. C. No. 7779/97 prays that in view of the petition the writ petition be allowed to be withdrawn. The learned counsel for the petitioner in O. J. C. No. 7779/97 prays that in view of the petition the writ petition be allowed to be withdrawn. It may be noted that serious allegations were made against the opp. parties in the writ application and after issuance of notice, opp. party No. 5 had filed the counter-affidavit, as discussed earlier, refuting the allegations and now when the matter is taken up for hearing, this appliction for withdrawal has been filed. However, we shall deal with the matter at a later stage. ( 6 ) COMING to O. J. C. No. 92 of 1997, it is to be noted that the claim of the petitioner in this case is that in the year 1989 being approached by late Sadasiva Swain, the allottee of Stall No. 183, the petitioner invested a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and became a partner of the said business in the suit premises and was managing the entire business as Managing Partner and after the death of Sadasiva Swain, he is looking after the entire business as Managing Partner. It is the case of the petitioner that he used to go for marketing, collecting orders from different schools and institutions and to supply required books and materials during the school hour i. e. from 10 A. M. to 5 P. M. and as such was remaining absent from the stall during those hours. Having faced with difficulties and inconveniences for running the business he engaged one Ranjan Kumar Swain and one Sanjeeb Kumar Swain to look after the business as salesman on remuneration basis from 10 A. M. to 5 P. M. in the business premises till 1994. It is further alleged that after the death of Sadasiva Swain, Opp. Party No. 2 lodged a complaint before the opp. party No. 1 for vacation of the suit premises and the petitioner was not made a party. The salesmen engaged by the petitioner were wrongfully added as opp. parties in the P. P. Case No. 3038 of 1992 even though the petitioner was in actual possession of the premises. The petitioner was not aware of any proceedings inasmuch as service of notice under Section 4 (1) of the Act, was neither issued nor served on him. The opp. parties did not contest the case even though they received all communications made from opp. The petitioner was not aware of any proceedings inasmuch as service of notice under Section 4 (1) of the Act, was neither issued nor served on him. The opp. parties did not contest the case even though they received all communications made from opp. party No. 1 and also did not inform the petitioner. The petitioner came to know of the eviction order only on 11-11-96 and he filed a perition before opp. party No. 1 to implead him as a party. But opp. party No. 1 without appreciating the contentions of the petitioner passed an order dated 22-11-96 rejecting his application. Smt. Suryamani Swain, wife of late Sadasiva Swain has filed an application for intervention which was registered as misc. Case No. 5351 of 1997. But the said application has been dismissed by order dated 23-6-97. ( 7 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, the only question that needs consideration is, as to whether the order of the Estate Officer, Rourkela dated 22-11-96 rejecting the appliction of the peritioner for being impleaded as a party is sustainable in law? Nothing has been brought on record and no document has been filed by the petitioner to substantiate his claim that he was a partener with late Sadasiva Swain and was doing business in the disputed shop No. 183. Not even a scrap of paper has been filed to indicate that either he was a partner or he was doing business in the premises of the shop No. 183, during the life time of Sadasiva or thereafter. According to the petitioner, one Ranjan Kumar Swain and one Sajeeb Kumar Swain were engaged by him as salesmen to do business in the disputed shop on remuneration basis between 10 A. M. and 5 P. M. may be on behalf of the petitioner. The plea of the petitioner that he was remaining absent from the business premises between 10 A. M. and 5 P. M. throughout the year in connection with supply of different materials to schools and the business in the Stall No. 183 was entirely managed by the two salesmen as aforesaid, is a story hard to believe and rely. Undisputedly, notices had been served on the admitted occupier Ranjan Kumar Swain and Sanjeeb Kumar Swain who according to the petitioner are his salesmen. Undisputedly, notices had been served on the admitted occupier Ranjan Kumar Swain and Sanjeeb Kumar Swain who according to the petitioner are his salesmen. ( 8 ) A reference may be made to the relevant provision of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, Section 2 (g) defines unauthorised occupation in relation to public premises as follows :- (G) "unauthorised occupation", in relation to any public premises, means the occupation by any person of the public premises without authority for such occupation, and includes the continuance in occupation by any person of the public premises after the authority (whether by way of grant or any other mode of transfer) under which he was allowed to occupy the premises has expired or has been determined for any reason whatsoever. "section 4 of the Act provides for a notice if the Estate Officer is of opinion that any persons are in unauthorised occupation of any public premises and that they should be evicted. The notice is to be served by having it affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises, and in such other manner as may be prescribed in which event the notices shall be deemed to have been duly given to all persons concerned. It appears that notices were duly served in terms of Section 4 (3) of the Act and the order of eviction has been passed. The petitioner having not shown any semblance of right to occupy the shop room or any scrap of paper to show that he was in occupation of the stall No. 183 before the Estate Officer, the question of allowing his petition to be impleaded as a party that too after the eviction order was passed and notice to vacate was issued did not arise and his appliction has rightly been rejected. The petitioner even in this writ petition has not produced any material to show his occupation or any manner of right or interest in the disputed stall to be entitled to be noticed or to be impleaded as a party in the proceedings for eviction and therefore the order rejecting his appliction for impletion cannot be faulted. We see absolutely no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned to interfere in the matter in a writ jurisdiction. We see absolutely no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned to interfere in the matter in a writ jurisdiction. ( 9 ) NOW coming to the prayer of the learned counsel in O. J. C. No. 7779 of 1997 for withdrawal of the writ peition, we are constrained to observe that the petitioner approached this Court making serious allegation regarding unauthorised and high handed action of public officers were particularly opp. party No. 5, for allegedly having put a lock on the running business premises of the petitioner paralysing his business and on allegation that the opp. parties therein, in spite of the order of this Court, flouted the same with impunity and should therefore be suitably dealt with. But perhaps, when the true state of facts were brought on record by the opposite parties in their counter-affidavit annexing the copy of Station Diary Entry to show that one Binaya Pradhan of Shop No. 14, allegedly put a lock in shop No. 183 and on enquiry, P. R. under Section 107, Cr. P. C. vide non-F. I. R. Case No. 64 of 1997 was filed wherein the petitioner Kumar Naik was shown second party and a counter P. R. was filed vide non-F. I. R. case No. 65 of 1997 wherein the petitioner and some others were arrayed as first parties and that both the parties had put up their respective locks in the disputed shop No. 183 and that the allegation in the writ petition was false, at that stage the petitioner has filed Misc. Case No. 10092 of 1997 for withdrawal of the writ petition. It may be placed on record that the reason for withdrawal of the writ petition mentioned in the miscellaneous case is that the matter has reached a mutual settlement and the concerned police personnel have opened the business, the petitioner wants to withdraw the writ petition. No. material has been placed on record to show any such settlement nor the learned Addl. Government Advocate accepts any such settlement having been recorded. No litigant has the liberty to initiate judicial proceedings that too to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court on false and fabricated stories to obtain favourable interim orders, like what the petitioner has done. Government Advocate accepts any such settlement having been recorded. No litigant has the liberty to initiate judicial proceedings that too to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court on false and fabricated stories to obtain favourable interim orders, like what the petitioner has done. Such tendency appears to be gradually on increase and it is high time that it should be given a check to save innocent persons from the unnecessary harassment of being dragged to litigation for not tangible reasoons. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the considerrd opinion that as the petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands and as he has failed to establish his case, instead of permitting the petitioner to withdraw the case, we dismiss the writ application O. J. C. No. 7779 of 1997 being devoid of any merit with exemplary cost. In the result, both the writ petitions O. J. C. No. 92 of 1997 and O. J. C. No. 779 of 1997 are dismissed with consolidated cost of Rs. 2,500/ -. ( 10 ) P. C. NAIK, J. :- I agree. Petition dismissed. .