K. Ramamoorthy,j. ( 1 ) THE writ petitioner is highly qualified Doctor working in the Defence Service. He was allotted residential accommodation as per his entitlement. On 5. 1. 1995 he was asked to move to higher accommodation and to vacate the accommodation given to him under Defence Pool. On 30. 1. 1995 the petitioner was directed to pay damages for use of the flat allotted to him w. e. f. 5. 1. 1995@rs. 6,344. 00. In November,1997 the petitioner surrendered the flat allotted to him and shifted to accommodation allotted from the General Pool. The case of the petitioner is that the first respondent was not justified in demanding penal rate of rent from 5. 1. 1995 upto the date he vacated the premises in November, 1997. ( 2 ) A few facts necessary to be noticed are as follows: In March, 1977 the petitioner was recruited in the Indian Army in Army Medical Core as Capt. In the year 1980 he was posted in 27 AD Regiment, Delhi. The petitioner was promoted to the rank of Major in April 1983. He completed his Directorate of Medicine in 1984. On 22. 10. 1984 the petitioner was posted to Institute of New Clear Medicine and Allied Sciences, Delhi. On 15. 12. 1984 the petitioner applied for allotment of residential accommodation for his family because he was married. The petitioner was allotted Flat No. 29, Block 3, (Third Floor) Arjun Vihar, New Delhi. The petitioner occupied the flat in February, 1985. ( 3 ) IN the year 1987, while he was working in the Institute of New Clear Medicine and Allied Sciences was awarded Fellowship of World Health Organisation. and he underwent training in different Endocrine Centres in USA and UK. ( 4 ) ON 17. 4. 1989 the petitioner was promoted as Lt. Col. and was designated as Head-Endocrine Department at INMAS. ( 5 ) ON 26. 7. 1988 the petitioner was selected for Permanent Secondment to the third respondent (Defence Research and Development Organisation ). and he underwent training in different Endocrine Centres in USA and UK. ( 4 ) ON 17. 4. 1989 the petitioner was promoted as Lt. Col. and was designated as Head-Endocrine Department at INMAS. ( 5 ) ON 26. 7. 1988 the petitioner was selected for Permanent Secondment to the third respondent (Defence Research and Development Organisation ). The order reads as under: "permanent SECONDMENT :amc OFFICERS IN DRDO The undersigned is directed to say that the following officers have been approved for permanent secondment to the Defence Research and Development Organisation w. e. f. 4 May 1988: (a) Lt Col Amarnath Jena (MR-3477) (b) Lt Col SJ Naidu (MR-02739) (e) Maj JK Bansal (MR-03539) (d) Maj RK Marwaha (MR-04480) These officers will now be governed by terms and conditions of service as laid down by Government of India vide their Office Memorandum No. Pers/ 18601/rd Sol Bd/7971/d (R and D), dated 23 November, 1979 as amended. " ( 6 ) IN the year 1992 after successful completing the Post Doctoral Fellowship in Endocrinology. The petitioner was awarded Diploma by the National Board. On 31. 1. 1990 a general instructions were issued by the Union of India to the Chiefs of the Army Staff, Naval Staff and Air Staff, with reference to allotment of quarters. Paragraph (b) (H) (ii) of the instructions reads as under: "deputationist officers, who are permanently seconded to DRDO, DGQA and Coast Guard and have been allotted regular Defence Pool accommodation by the CAO prior to issue of this letter will be allowed to retain that accommodation till the alternative hired accommodation is provided to them by the CAO or they are posted out of the station, whichever is earlier. . . . . " ( 7 ) IT may be noticed here that the petitioner was allotted a flat in Arjun Vihar 1985 and that was in accordance with the rules, then in force. On 8. 11. 1990 the Director of Estate, Government of India issued a Memorandum in the following terms: "subject : Eligibility of permanently seconded Defence Service Officers for General Pool accommodation. A question has arisen about the eligibility for General Pool accommodation of the Defence Service Officers who are permanently seconded to Organisations like DGQA or other Organisations under the Ministry of Defence including the Ministry itself. A question has arisen about the eligibility for General Pool accommodation of the Defence Service Officers who are permanently seconded to Organisations like DGQA or other Organisations under the Ministry of Defence including the Ministry itself. It has been clarified by the Chief Administrative Officer, Ministry of Defence that such officers are entitled to allotment of hired accommodation from Defence Pool. Since General Pool is not intended for allotment to officers who are eligible for departmental pool accommodation, whether owned or hired by the Deptt. , it has been decided that the applications for allotment of General Pool accommodation from Defence service officers permanently seconded to Organisations under the Ministry of Defence including the Ministry itself shall not be considered notwithstanding the fact that the office where they are posted is eligible for general pool residential accommodation. The eligibility will be restricted to the Civilian employees of such organisations. " ( 8 ) WHATEVER be the position taken by the Director of Estate and the Government of India, with reference to allotment to officers who had gone by secondment, he petitioner having been allotted the flat in 1985 cannot be disturbed unless he was lotted flat which would enable him to discharge his functions efficiently. ( 9 ) ON 28. 2. 1992 the Quartering Officer wrote to the third respondent (DRDO) he following: "vacation of Defence Pool Accommodation. It has now been decided by the Government that officers posted to DGQA and DRDO, both permanently seconded and those posted on tenure basis, should not be allotted accommodation from the Defence Pool and those who are already in occupation of Defence Pool accommodation should vacate the same by 31. 3. 1992. The responsibility for providing accommodation to such officers now lies with these Organisations. 2. You are in occupation of Defence Pool Flat No. 29/3, Arjun Vihar, New Delhi. In the light of the above orders, you are requested to vacate the accommodation by 31. 3. 1992 positively. Allotment of this accommodation in your name will stand cancelled w. e. f. 31. 3. 1992. For allotment of alternative accommodation, you may contact your Administrative Authorities in your organisation. In the light of the above orders, you are requested to vacate the accommodation by 31. 3. 1992 positively. Allotment of this accommodation in your name will stand cancelled w. e. f. 31. 3. 1992. For allotment of alternative accommodation, you may contact your Administrative Authorities in your organisation. " ( 10 ) THE petitioner in the writ petition explained his position in the years 1992 and 1993 : "that in February, 92, the respondent No. 1 arbitrarily, unilaterally and in violation of the Regulations and Ministry directions decided to get the accommodation provided to the service officers permanently seconded to DRDO vacated and to further place the responsibility of providing accommodation on DRDO and directed the petitioner and all other service officers posted to DRDO/dgqa to vacate the premises by 31. 3. 1992. On DRDO taking up the matter with the Ministry, the latter permitted retention of the accommodation by such officers till May, 1993 and imposed the condition that the officers concerned undertake to vacate the premises by 31. 5. 1993 and shift to accommodation to be provided by DRDO/alternative hired accommodation by CAO. That while on such permanent secondment to DRDO, the petitioner was selected and sent to the United Kingdom on official duty for specialised training in Molecular Endocrinology from September, 1992 to February, 1993. " ( 11 ) THE petitioner and other three officers in Army Medical Core represented to the Defence Secretary, Government of India and the relevant portion of the representation is as under: " (I) The Medical Officers posted at INMAS have multifarious duties of attending not only the duties at INMAS complex but visit frequently and periodically the Military Hospitals, ICMR, AIIMS, Safdar Jung Hospital, RML Hospital etc. to have professional interaction, follow up and discussion of their research projects. This is absolutely essential as no in-patient Hospital facility exist at INMAS. (ii) That from domestic front as well, in view of the allotment of the accommodation at Dhaula Kuan the petitioner s wife has taken up employment in Air Force Golden Jubilee School, Subroto Park and child has been admitted in the nearby Public School. (iii) That medical facility (Army Hospital) to which the petitioner and his family are entitled are located nearby which is of great importance in day-to-day life. (iii) That medical facility (Army Hospital) to which the petitioner and his family are entitled are located nearby which is of great importance in day-to-day life. (iv) That certain Flats of DRDO which have been allotted to the officers who are posted to DRDO on tenure basis while their allotments are controlled and required to be made by CAO from the Defence Pool. Thus these officers having been allotted accommodation from the DRDO quota, in turn officers who have been holding the Defence Pool Accommodation under the control of the CAO maybe permitted to retain the same since such an exchange within the Ministry of Defence is admissible and an officer who is occupying Station Head Quarter accommodation, Delhi Area has been permitted to retain the same even after he ceased to be entitled to the said accommodation. " ( 12 ) ON 8. 7. 1993 the Dy CAO (Quarters) made a note in the following terms: RETENTION OF DEFENCE POOL ACCOMMODATION BY PERMANENTLY SECONDED SERVICE OFFICERS (AMC) 1. Reference your note No. Wks/34456/97/rd-28 dated 20. 5. 1993. 2. The case has been examined, it is noticed that you have recommended retention of Defence Pool accn by four officers of INMAS. It is not dear whether this recommendation has been made taking into account the personal needs of these four officers or it is based on an organisational need. In case it is an organisational requirement, the same should be stated categorically. Moreover, there is no mention of either the date of retirement or posting out of these officers and whether they are to be permitted retention as long as they remain posted to DRDO. 3. It may also be intimated whether DRDO recommends retention of accn only by the four officers mentioned in your note under reference or such dispensation is to be made in the case of the remaining five officers also. If recommendation for retention of Defence Pool accn is made based on an organsiational need, then DRDO should transfer an equal number of flats available with them at Timar Pur to this office for allotment to officers. The position in this regard may please be clarified. 4. An early reply is requested. " ( 13 ) ON 14. 7. If recommendation for retention of Defence Pool accn is made based on an organsiational need, then DRDO should transfer an equal number of flats available with them at Timar Pur to this office for allotment to officers. The position in this regard may please be clarified. 4. An early reply is requested. " ( 13 ) ON 14. 7. 1993 the Joint Director, Administration put up a note stating: "subject : RETENTION OF DEFENCE POOL ACCOMMODATION BY PERMANENTLY SECONDED SERVICE OFFICERS (AMC) Reference your note No. PC/41187/dgqa/cao/q-1 dated 8 July, 1993. 2. The recommendations forwarded by DRDO for retention of Defence Pool Accommodation by permanently seconded service officers of INMAS have been done taking into consideration the benefits and advantages that would accrue to the Organisation because of the necessity for the officers concerned to regularly and constantly interact with Army Hospital, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) and other leading hospitals in South Delhi in pursuit of R and D activities in the field of INMAs specialisation. We consider that their continued stay in the Cantonment area forclose by would be of immense benefit to the Organisation. 3. The recommendations do not take into consideration other service officers permanently seconded to DRDO and posted in the R and D Establishments at Delhi. 4. In case our recommendations are approved, we would be willing to earmark the same number of service officers quarters from DRDO Pool at Timarpur for allotment at the disposal of CAO (Q ). 5. We would request that Vice Admiral R Kohli, VSM (IN) may kindly be permitted to retain the CAO Pool of accommodation as a special case since he is the only officer of the rank of Lt Gen equivalent on the permanent establishment of DRDO. This has the approval of Chief Controller R and D. " ( 14 ) ON 29. 12. 1993 the Government of India, Ministry of Defence asked the petitioner to vacate: "subject : VACATION OF REGULAR DEFENCE POOL ACCOMMODATION. The PSOC in their meeting held on 10. 11. 1993 have decided that the decision of the Chiefs of Staff Committee (COSC), that the officers permanently seconded to DRDO/dgqa and are in occupation of Defence Pool accommodation be shifted to alternative accommodation, be strictly enforced and implemented. No application/request for continued retention of Defence Pool accommodation be entertained. 2. The PSOC in their meeting held on 10. 11. 1993 have decided that the decision of the Chiefs of Staff Committee (COSC), that the officers permanently seconded to DRDO/dgqa and are in occupation of Defence Pool accommodation be shifted to alternative accommodation, be strictly enforced and implemented. No application/request for continued retention of Defence Pool accommodation be entertained. 2. As per our records, you are presently in occupation of Defence Pool accommodation No. 29/3 at Arjun Vihar. You are, therefore, requested to vacate the Defence Pool accommodation immediately and contact this office for alternative accommodation. Please accord priority . " ( 15 ) ON 20. 2. 1994 the Government of India issued an order that officers will have to vacate the premises if they are posted out of Delhi. The order reads as under: "special DISPENSATION TO RETAIN DEF POOL ACCN MEDICAL OFFICERS OF THE DRDO. 1. The DRDO has brought out that four medical officers posted to INMAS are in occupation of Defence Pool accn. These officers are extensively involved in research and providing specialist services to members of the three Services. They have an additional requirement of making frequent visits to AIIMS, Army Hospital, and other major medical institutions, all of which are located in South Delhi and Cantonment area for carrying out Clinical discussions and research projects. 2. The above issues were explained to the Chairman Chiefs of Staff on 15 Feb. , 1994 by the undersigned. The Chairman Chiefs of Staff has granted special dispensation to these officers in view of the fact that they carry out research in the interests of the Services and on humanitarian grounds, to retain Defence Pool accn with the following provisos. (a) The officers would have to vacate accn in case transferred out of Delhi area. (b) This is a one time exception and will not be quoted as a precedent. 3. The names of the officers are listed below: (i) Brig CM Khanna (ii) Lt Col A Jena (iii) Lt Col RP Tripathi (iv) Lt Col RK Marwah 4. You are requested to action accordingly. " ( 16 ) ON 21. 9. 1994 the Quartering Officer wrote to the petitioner asking him to vacate and same is as under: "subject : VACATION OF REGULAR DEFENCE POOL ACCOMMODATION. You are requested to action accordingly. " ( 16 ) ON 21. 9. 1994 the Quartering Officer wrote to the petitioner asking him to vacate and same is as under: "subject : VACATION OF REGULAR DEFENCE POOL ACCOMMODATION. The Chiefs of Staff Committee considered the issue of retention of Defence Pool regular accommodation by the officers permanently seconded to DRDO/ DGQA on case to case basis. The Committee was of the view that there was no obligation on the services to provide accommodation to permanently seconded officers. The Committee has, therefore, directed that all permanently seconded officers of DRDO/dgqa in occupation of DP accommodation (regular/hostel) are to vacate the same at the earliest. This office has to issue notices to the officers concerned and submit a completion report for the perusal of the Chiefs of Staff Committee. 2. As per our records you are presently in occupation of Defence Pool accommodation No. 29/3, Arjun Vihar, New Delhi. You are, therefore, requested to contact this office for alternative hired accommodation to facilitate. . . . . . the Defence Pool regular/hostel accommodation immediately but not later than 7. 10. 1994. 3. Please accord PRIORITY. "( 17 ) ON 28. 9. 1994 the petitioner wrote to the Quartering Officer in reply the following: "sub: VACATION OF REGULAR DEFENCE POOL ACCOMMODATION. Ref your letters No. 41187/dcqa/drdo/cao/q-1 dated 21 Sept. , 1994 received on 26th Sept. , 1994 asking me to vacate my permanent accommodation i. e. 29/3, Arjun Vihar by 9th Oct. ,1994 and contact CAO office for alternate hired accommodation. In this context you are requested to refer to the Ministry of Defence letter No. DMW/32200/1 /psoc dated 20. 2. 1994 granting me special dispensation to retain my accommodation and, therefore, the present vacation order is not applicable to me. " ( 18 ) ON 4. 10. 1994 the first respondent directed the petitioner to vacate the premises by 7. 10. 1994 and the letter was received by the petitioner on 10. 10. 1994. The petitioner made representation and there was no reply. On 12. 10. 1994 the Ministry of Defence wrote to the Office of the JS (Trg) and CAO the following: "subject : VACATION OF REGULAR DEFENCE POOL ACCOMMODATION 1. Reference your letter No. 41 /87/dga/drdo. 001, dated 4 Oct. , 1994 addressed to the four officers of DSRDO. 2. 10. 1994. The petitioner made representation and there was no reply. On 12. 10. 1994 the Ministry of Defence wrote to the Office of the JS (Trg) and CAO the following: "subject : VACATION OF REGULAR DEFENCE POOL ACCOMMODATION 1. Reference your letter No. 41 /87/dga/drdo. 001, dated 4 Oct. , 1994 addressed to the four officers of DSRDO. 2. These four MC officers involved in research and providing specialist services to the members of the three services were exempted from vacation of the residential accommodation vide QMG Branch letter No. DMW/322001/psoc dated 20, Feb. , 1994. 3. In addition, this office has offered to surender equal number of service officers quarters (Majors and above) in Timarpur in exchange of the above vide this office letter No. Wks/34456/97/rd-28 dated 14 Jul. , 1993 as per suggestion made vide para 3 of your Note No. PC~41187/ DGQA/drdo/cao/q-1 dated 8 Jul. , 1993. 4. In view of the above it is requested that these four specialist officers be permitted to retain the above accommodation. 5. In case, the proposal given in para 4 above cannot be agreed to, these officers may please be permitted to retain the accommodation on compassionate grounds upto the academic session had their children are in higher classes (Classes X to XII) and disturbance at this critical juncture may prove harmful to the children. 6. You are requested to reconsider the cases sympathetically and permit retention of married accommodation upto the academic session. " ( 19 ) WHAT was pointed out by the Ministry of Defence was that in case the Seconded Officers were to retain the flats allotted equal number of flats must come from the DRD to the General Defence Pool. ( 20 ) ON 5. 1. 1995 the Quartering Officer wrote to the petitioner: "subject : VACATION OF REGULAR DEFENCE POOL ACCOMMODATION. 1. Reference this office letter of even number dated 21, Sep. 1994. 2. You were requested to contact this office latest by 7. 10. 1994 for allotment of alternative hired accommodation to facilitate vacation of the Defence Pool regular/hostel accommodation. However, as you have failed to report to this office, allotment letter No. 97666/allotment/ CAO/q-1 dated 5 Jan. , 1995 for an alternative hired accommodation is enclosed. 3. You are requested to take over the accommodation latest by the date indicated in the allotment letter under intimation to this office. However, as you have failed to report to this office, allotment letter No. 97666/allotment/ CAO/q-1 dated 5 Jan. , 1995 for an alternative hired accommodation is enclosed. 3. You are requested to take over the accommodation latest by the date indicated in the allotment letter under intimation to this office. In case you fail to do so, besides charge of damages rent w. e. f. the date of allotment of the hired accommodation to date of vacation of the regular/hostel accommodation, the matter will be reported to the Estate Officer, Ministry of Defence for proceeding against you under the PPE Act, 1971. " ( 21 ) IT may be noticed that this was when the matter was being considered by the Government of India at the instance of the third respondent DRDO. ( 22 ) ON 10. 1. 1995 the petitioner called on the officers concerned and submitted a letter. The same is as under: "sub: VACATION OF REGULAR DEFENCE POOL ACCOMMODATION. I am in receipt of your letter No. 41187/dga/drdo/cao/q1 dated 5. 1. 1995 requesting me to shift to the hired accommodation by 11th Jan. , 1995 failing which damage rent would be charged from the date of allotment till it is reallotted and occupied by another officer. 2. In this connection I would like to bring to your kind notice my appeal to Chairman Chief s of Staff Committee vide letter No. DMS/2021/ Accn dated 7. 10. 1994 a copy of which had been sent to your office (a copy attached) requesting to reconsider retainment/exchange of present accommodation as decided earlier by the Committee. 3. DRDO HQ letter No. WKS/34456/97/rd-28 dated 12. 10. 1994 on this issue was also sent to your office (a copy attached) for your perusal to which no reply has been received. 4. Since there is no mention about the decision on my appeal to Chairman Chief s of Staff Committee on the above subject, I therefore, request you to defer your allotment/vacation order till I hear finally about the outcome of my appeal. Thanking you," ( 23 ) BY letter dated 11. 1. 1995 the first respondent wrote to the petitioner stating: "subject : VACATION OF REGULAR DEFENCE POOL ACCOMMODATION. Reference your application bearing No. DMS/2021/accn dated 9 Jan. , 1995 received on 10 Jan. , 1995. 2. Thanking you," ( 23 ) BY letter dated 11. 1. 1995 the first respondent wrote to the petitioner stating: "subject : VACATION OF REGULAR DEFENCE POOL ACCOMMODATION. Reference your application bearing No. DMS/2021/accn dated 9 Jan. , 1995 received on 10 Jan. , 1995. 2. In this connection it is stated that this office is not aware of the outcome of your appeal to Chairman Chief s of Staff Committee forwarded through DGR and D. We have learnt from Secretary, Principal Supply Officers Committee, that your appeal has not been received by the COSC Sectt. 3. In view of the above you are requested to shift to alternate accommodation offered by this office by the due date i. e. II Jan. , 1995 failing which the matter will be reported to the Estate Officer to initiate proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. " ( 24 ) ON 30. 1. 1995 the Quartering Officer passed the following order directing e petitioner to pay penal rate of rent, which is challenged. The same is as under: UNAUTHORISED OCCUPATION OF DEFENCE POOL ACCOMMODATION 1. The under-mentioned officers were required to vacate the Defence Pool regular accommodations occupied by them. They were allotted alternative hired accommodations. The details of the hired accommodation allotted and the date of allotment are mentioned against their names: Ser Name of the Present Alternate Date of allot-Damages No. Officer accn. accn. ment of alter-Rate of ------offerred nate accn. Rent P. M.--------- (appx ). . "_______ -. . .--- (a) Brig Rakesh 3/259 1304/37 6. 1. 1995 Rs. 6,344. 00 Jha Arjun NOIDA Vihar (b) Brig CM Khanna 194, L-123/25 5. 1. 1995 Rs. 8,480. 00 Dhaula NOIDA Kuan-II (c) Lt Col SS 99-101,208/28,5. 1. 1995 Rs. 6,450. 00 dahiya Jodhpur NOIDA Hostel (d) Lt Col RP 231, EA-427, G-8,5. 1. 1995 Rs. 7,661. 00 Tripathi Dhaula Area, Rajouri Kuan-II Garden (e) Lt Col RK 3/29 H-200, Rajouri 5. 1. 1995 Rs. 6,344. 00 Marwah Arjun Garden Vihar (f) Col A Jena 234, A-2/193 (GF) 5. 1. 1995 Rs. 7,661. 00 Dhaula Janakpuri Kuan-II 2. Since the above officers have failed to take the alternate hired accommodation, you are requested to place them on damages rate of rent from the date of allotment of alternate hired accn and confirm action. ( 25 ). On 13. 2. 1995 writ petition was presented in this Court. 1. 1995 Rs. 7,661. 00 Dhaula Janakpuri Kuan-II 2. Since the above officers have failed to take the alternate hired accommodation, you are requested to place them on damages rate of rent from the date of allotment of alternate hired accn and confirm action. ( 25 ). On 13. 2. 1995 writ petition was presented in this Court. ( 26 ) ON 15. 3. 1995 a letter was taken from the petitioner. The letter is as under: "sub: VACATION OF REGULAR DEFENCE POOL ACCOMMODATION. I am in occupation of regular defence pool accommodation (Block 3/29 Arjun Vihar) which was duly allotted to me by CAO. Due to some change in policy I was issued a notice on 21 Sept. , 1994 by CAO to vacate the quarter by 7 Oct. , 1994. Since I am involved with various Endorcrine Projects with AIIMS and Army Hospital, it will be very difficult for me to pursue with these projects if asked to vacate. I, therefore, request the SA to take up the case with Defence Secretary to permit me to continue in the same accommodation for a period one year i. e. upto 31 March, 1996. However, I will vacate the present premises by 30th April, 1995 if the permission to retain accommodation is not granted to me. I will also take action to withdraw the case from the High Court. ( 27 ) ON 4. 4. 1995 the Government of India wrote the following: "sub : RETENTION OF DEFENCE POOL ACCOMMODATION BY PERMANENTLY SECONDED OFFICERS OF DRDO. 1. Further to this office note of even number dated 13. 3. 1995ontheabove subject. 2. The issue of retention of Defence Pool (DP) regular accommodations by permanently seconded officers of DRDO was reconsidered. In the light of the undertakings given by the concerned officers mentioned below, the Defence Secetary has granted special dispensation for retention of defence Pool regular accommodation by them for the period noted against their names: (a) Vice Adm R. Kohli On payment of damages rate of rent @ Rs. 12,784. 00 per month from 13. 2. 1995 to 7. 2. 1996, by DRDO, the officer will not be entitled to retain Defence Pool accommodation beyond 7. 2. 1996 for three months as per the Accommodation rules after retirement. (b) Brig CM Khanna Only upto (c) Col. A Jena 30. 4. 12,784. 00 per month from 13. 2. 1995 to 7. 2. 1996, by DRDO, the officer will not be entitled to retain Defence Pool accommodation beyond 7. 2. 1996 for three months as per the Accommodation rules after retirement. (b) Brig CM Khanna Only upto (c) Col. A Jena 30. 4. 1995 on (d) Lt Col RP Tripathi children (e) Lt Col RK Marwah education grounds, on payment of normal rate of rent. 3. It is requested that the officers concerned may be informed accordingly. DRDO may kindly arrange to pay the damages rate of rent at the rate mentioned above in the case of Vice Admiral R. Kohli for the period from 13. 2. 1995 to 7. 2. 1996, DRDO will also ensure that the officers mentioned at Serial Nos. (b) to (e) above vacate the accommodation by 30. 4. 1995 and the officer at serial (a) above by 7. 2. 1996, positively. " ( 28 ) ON 15. 4. 1995 the petitioner wrote to the Director General (third respondent) explaining his position withdrawing the letter dated 15. 3. 1995 on the ground that it was taken under duress. ( 29 ) THIS aspect of the matter was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 25. 4. 1995 and the order is as under: "we granted stay on 14th February, 1995 to the petitioner to continue at Flat No. 29, Block No. 3, (Third Floor), Arjun Vihar, New Delhi-110010. Respondents have not filed the reply but this was perhaps of the fact that the petitioner had written a letter to the respondents on 15. 3. 1995 wherein he had agreed to vacate the premises by 30. 4. 1995 and he also undertook to withdraw the case from the High Court. But now petitioner s Counsel says that on 15. 4. 1995 petitioner withdrew the letter dated 15. 3. 1995 as having been submitted under certain circumstances. It is contended before us that the letter dated 15. 3. 1995 was the result of coercion. We would like the respondents to file their reply covering the subsequent events also. Let reply be filed within ten days. Respondents should also produce the file in Court on the next date of hearing. Petitioner seeks time to file rejoinder. Let rejoinder be filed by the next date. Adjourned to 23rd May, 1995. 1995 was the result of coercion. We would like the respondents to file their reply covering the subsequent events also. Let reply be filed within ten days. Respondents should also produce the file in Court on the next date of hearing. Petitioner seeks time to file rejoinder. Let rejoinder be filed by the next date. Adjourned to 23rd May, 1995. " ( 30 ) I have referred to this letter at this stage because it is not a matter to be decided in the writ petition as the-validity of the order dated 30. 1. 1995 is to be decided and the letter dated 15. 3. 1995 was after the filing of the writ petition. ( 31 ) THE point involved is a very narrow one. It is common ground that the petitioner was recruited to AMC and was seconded to the third respondent owing to his qualifications. The original allotment in 1985 was as per the rules. The instructions came to be issued by the Government of India on 30. 1. 1990 challenging the whole system of allotment of flats to officers who had gone on secondment. ( 32 ) THE respondents while trying to impleadment the instructions issued by the Government of India on 30. 1. 1990 should have considered the rights of the professionally qualified people like the petitioner and should have considered the circumstances under which they are placed at that time and should have given an opportunity to explain their position and then should have issued order to vacate the premises after providing suitable accommodation. The first respondent had acted as if the whole law had been changed on 30. 1. 1990 and the petitioner was bound to act in accordance with the instructions as if the allotment to the petitioner was made after issuance of the instructions on 30. 1. 1990. The petitioner without being able to resist the pressire from the respondents yielded and vacated the premises in November, 1997. The whole basis of the order dated 30. 1. 1995 is that the petitioner was required to vacate the Defence Pool regular accommodation and did not occupy the hired accommodation allotted to him. The first respondent while issuing the order, as I have noticed above, had not acted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and acted in unreasonable fashion. 1. 1995 is that the petitioner was required to vacate the Defence Pool regular accommodation and did not occupy the hired accommodation allotted to him. The first respondent while issuing the order, as I have noticed above, had not acted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and acted in unreasonable fashion. The petitioner had been making representations to the Government of India and the claim of the petitioner was supported by the third respondent and the first respondent wanted only equal number of flats being coming from the Pool of the third respondent and when that is so, the petitioner cannot be said to have violated any order passed by the first respondent warranting the issuance of levying penal rate of rent. The first respondent as a public authority is expected to act as a prudent person, who is properly instructed in law. The first respondent had assumed that the petitioner was guilty of disobeying the orders passed by the first respondent and, therefore, the first respondent was within its powers in directing the petitioner to pay penal rate of rent. ( 33 ) THE facts narrated by me above would clearly show that the petitioner had been trying to persuade the first respondent to appreciate his position as a doctor and when the petitioner is working in AIIMS and has to visit the Hospital he cannot be shifted to a far away place. The petitioner was also trying to impress upon the first respondent that he was engaged on behalf of the Government of India in a very important task and that required his being in Arjun Nagar instead being shifted to a place suggested by the first respondent. The order of the first respondent dated 30. 1. 1995 cannot at all be sustained in law and it is liable to be set aside. ( 34 ) ACCORDINGLY, the order dated 30. 1. 1995 is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.