ORDER Head Mr. Jai Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned JC to SC No.1 2. My attention has been invited to the order dated 21.4.98, passed by this Court in CWJC No. 1223 of 1996 (R) (Builders' Association Vs. State & Ors.), a copy of which is marked Annexure 33 to the writ petition. Pursuant to the said order, TISCO sent its letter dated 28.5.98 to the Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur (Respondent no.2), enclosing a list of 153 quarters the possession of which has been handed over by TISCO to the police administration for the S.P. Pool, and also enclosing thereto a list of 82 houses of TISCO in unauthorised occupation of the police personnel. A copy of the said letter dated 28.5.98 along with the list of 82 quarters is marked Annexure-A to the counter affidavit of respondent no.2. It is stated in paragraph-1 0 of the counter affidavit that the petitioner has vacated the quarter on 25.10.98 which was in his unauthorised occupation, and figures against SI. no. 32 of the said list. Learned Junior Counsel to S.C.I. further informs this Court that three more unauthorised occupants have vacated their quarters, as is manifest from Annexure-B. The counter affidavit is significantly silent with regard to the removal of unauthorised occupation of the remaining quarters. Respondent no.2 has obviously made a brazen attempt to take this Court down the garden path, which aspect shall be considered on the next date. 3. The S.P., Jamshedpur, respondent no.2, is directed to evict all the unauthorized occupants of the 82 quarters mentioned in the second list to Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, by force if required, and report compliance to this Court. Has he to be reminded that 81 of the unauthorised occupants are police personnel, who seem to have run amok and done this kind of illegal acts, which, according to this Court, has brought shame to his - organisation, but the police administration is shamelessly unmoved. Protectors have obviously become perpetrators. Discipline and self-respect seems to be first and perhaps the greatest casualty in the police administration of this State. The entire situation shooks the conscience of this Court. The facts of this case speak of a morbid state of affairs. Is the administration of this State being carried on according to tenets of the Constitution of India? Does the rule of law prevail in this state? 4. The entire situation shooks the conscience of this Court. The facts of this case speak of a morbid state of affairs. Is the administration of this State being carried on according to tenets of the Constitution of India? Does the rule of law prevail in this state? 4. He is also directed to submit a detailed counter affidavit with regard to the inaction and failure to carry out the terms of the aforesaid order dated 21.4.98 of this Court, and why appropriate action be not taken/initiated against him including initiation of contempt proceedings. He has not found almost one year adequate to carry out the directions of this Court. The counter affidavit shall be sworn by the present incumbent himself and shall also state the names of the incumbents with their period of stay in office ever since 21.4.98. 5. He shall ensure full compliance of this Court's earlier order dated 21.4.98 passed in CWJC No. 1223 of 1996 (R) (Annexure-3), in letter and spirit. In order to ensure full compliance of Annexure-3, he shall further verify and enquire whether or not any other quarter over and above the said 82 quarters of TISCO in and around Jamshedpur is under unauthorised occupation of the police personnel, and the steps taken shall be clearly stated in the counter affidavit. 6. The records suggest that the petitioner is a practising lawyer at Jamshedpur. He also failed to act with dignity and has brought disrepute to the legal profession. He belongs to the legal profession, and has yet acted illegally. He has also misused the rule of this Court. The writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to uphold or perpetuate illegality. This Court administers a severe warning on him and expects that he shall always hereinafter remind himself that law and justice is the dogma of the profession. How can grossly illegal acts like unauthorised occupation of premises of others be consistent with law, justice, and right conduct. 7. My attention has been invited to a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 1984 BLJR (32) (Registrar, High Court, Patna Vs. Sub divisional Magistrate-cum-the Competent Authority) wherein Mr. Justice C.N. Tiwary, a retired Judge of this Court, was respondent no.2. That case related to Mr. 7. My attention has been invited to a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 1984 BLJR (32) (Registrar, High Court, Patna Vs. Sub divisional Magistrate-cum-the Competent Authority) wherein Mr. Justice C.N. Tiwary, a retired Judge of this Court, was respondent no.2. That case related to Mr. Tiwary's unauthorised occupation of a government accommodation in the pool of the Patna High Court for its Judges at Patna, and his refusal to vacate the same even after his retirement as a Judge of this Court. Taking serious note of the unauthorised occupation by Mr. C.N. Tiwary and his refusal to vacate the same, this Court was constrained to record as follows in paragraphs-12 and 17 of the judgment which are set out hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference : "It is said that we have been called upon to decide the question of eviction of a person who has been our colleague until sometime before. The facts of the case have been succinctly stated in the Judgment of Brother Varma and I need not repeat them. Destiny has been so kind on respondent no.2 that he got three successive appointments as Ad Hoc Judge of this Court after his retirement, which was unprecedented so far, and even thereafter he has got employment as the Executive Chairman of the Bihar State Legal Aid Board. The last term of his Ad Hoc Judgeship expired on 20.7.1983 but still thereafter he was permitted by be Chief Justice to remain in occupation of the bungalow in question till the 30th September, 1983 and vacate thereafter; obviously meaning thereby that he had to vacate his residence after the expiry of the said term, but instead of gracefully vacating the premises he has chosen to face the litigation. "I, Therefore, come to the irresistible conclusion that the order of respondent no.1 suffers from error apparent on its face and must be quashed. I would accordingly allow the application and quash the order contained in Annexure-6. "I, Therefore, come to the irresistible conclusion that the order of respondent no.1 suffers from error apparent on its face and must be quashed. I would accordingly allow the application and quash the order contained in Annexure-6. Since the object of this special Act is to ensure prompt eviction of unauthorised occupant and realisation of arrears of rent which is manifested from the provision that the public authority has to call for vacation of the premises only within 15 days of the service of the notice as provided under rule 3 of the Bihar Government Premises (Rent, Recovery and Eviction) Rules, 1957, and on his failure, to evict him and take possession of the premises by such force as may be necessary. I direct respondent no. 1 to take action against respondent no. 2 immediately under the said provisions and on his failure to comply with the terms of the notice, to get the same vacated as early as possible so that it may be made available to another sitting Judge entitled to its occupation, several of whom are in the waiting and feeling great hardship. Let an appropriate writ issue accordingly." 8. As prayed for, let TISCO be impleaded as a party respondent as in the previous case. The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to serve a copy of this writ petition, and learned Govt. Counsel a copy of the counter affidavit, on Mr. B.P. Verma, Advocate, who usually appears for TISCO at once. 9. Put up on 18.5.99 on which date respondent no.2, namely, the Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur, shall be personally present in Court to report compliance of this order read with the aforesaid order dated 21.4.98 (Annexure-3). This Court directs the learned Govt. Advocate to personally 'appear on all the subsequent dates. Let copies of this order be handed over to the learned counsel for the parties at once.