Judgement This is one of those very few cases in which a former constitutional functionary has approached this Court by way of application made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking appropriate relief(s) against the alleged act(s) of omission committed by the Government, when the petitioner himself was a cabinet minister in the State Cabinet. 2. In a narrow compass, petitioners case may be put thus : The petitioner was, during the year 1995, Minister of Horticulture in the Government of Arunachal Pradesh. Though as a Cabinet Minister, the petitioner was entitled to free-furnished Government accommodation befitting his position and status, yet despite repeated requests made by him in his regard, the petitioner was not provided with such accommodation on the ground of non-availability of proper government accommodation. The petitioner had to, therefore, start residing in a Type II government quarter in Sector-D, at Itanagar, which stood allotted to the wife of the petitioner as a member of the staff of the State Government. The petitioner wrote a letter to the then Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh, on 1-8-1995, bringing to his notice that these state of affairs and requesting him either to provide the petitioner with proper residential Government accommodation or to allot a suitable plot of land to the petitioner for construction of a suitable house. As no effective action was taken on this representation, the petitioner, left with no other choice, made, at his own cost, some additions and alterations to the said type-II government quarter renovating the same to make the same reasonably fit for his accommodation as a Cabinet Minister. For complete three years, the petitioner, as a minister, had to remain residing in the said quarter. The total expenditure involved in renovating the said quarter and for making some essential alterations thereto was Rs.10,08,000/- as assessed vide letter, dated 4-1-1999 (Annexure-D to the writ petition) issued by the Committee constituted by the Secretary to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Rural Development Department, vide his order, dated 8-1-1999 (Annexure-C to the writ petition). However, the Government did not make payment of the said assessed value of Rs.10,08,000/- to the petitioner and the same state of affairs has continued. However, the Government did not make payment of the said assessed value of Rs.10,08,000/- to the petitioner and the same state of affairs has continued. Having been left with no alternative, the petitioner has, with a view to recovering his lawful dues, approached this Court with prayer, inter alia, to issue appropriate writ or writs on the respondents directing them to make payment of the amount of Rs.10,08,000/-, which is claimed to have been spent by the petitioner on the said quarter in renovating the same. 3. I have carefully perused the materials on record. I have heard Mr. T. Son, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate, who has appeared on behalf of the State respondents. 4. It is submitted, on behalf of the petitioner, that as a cabinet minister, the petitioner was entitled to occupy a free furnished government quarter befitting the status of a cabinet minister, but the same was not provided to the petitioner on account of a lack of availability of proper residential government accommodation and as a result thereof, the petitioner had to continue to stay in the Type-II quarter, Sector-D, at Itanagar, which actually stood allotted to the petitioners wife in her official capacity and as the said quarter was too small and unfit for accommodating /residential requirements of a cabinet minister, the same was renovated by the petitioner at his own cost, which, according to the assessment made by the Committee constituted specifically for this purpose by Secretary to the Department of Urban Development, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, involved an amount of Rs. 10,08,000/- and hence, the petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of the sum of money that he had incurred/spent in this regard. 5. Reacting to the above submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Nabam has pointed out that since the government quarter, in question, admittedly, stood allotted to the petitioners wife, the petitioner could not have legally, on his own and without any sanction from the appropriate authority, spent any money for the purpose of his own comfortable living and if the petitioners prayer is, now, acceded to, it will, contends Mr. Nabam has pointed out that since the government quarter, in question, admittedly, stood allotted to the petitioners wife, the petitioner could not have legally, on his own and without any sanction from the appropriate authority, spent any money for the purpose of his own comfortable living and if the petitioners prayer is, now, acceded to, it will, contends Mr. Nabam, create precedent inasmuch as this will open floodgate of litigations inasmuch as there are many government officials, who were/are forced to occupy and reside in the government quarters, which are far below their entitlement and all such persons will start making on their own improvements in the quarters, which they may occupy and claim reimbursement of the money spent by them from the State Government. Mr. Nabam, therefore, pleads that the writ petition may be dismissed. 6. Having heard both sides and upon perusal of the materials on record, what I notice is that though the petitioner as a cabinet minister was, admittedly, entitled to free furnished accommodation at the cost of the Government, the petitioner was not provided with such accommodation. However, this fact, in itself, was, in my firm view, not sufficient, to entitle the petitioner to make, on his own and without obtaining sanction from the appropriate/competent authority, any change(s) or alteration(s) into the said Government quarter, particularly, when the same stood allotted not the petitioner, but to his wife. The alterations/ change so made were prima facie illegal and will remain so unless the State Government chooses to pay for the same by granting ex post facto sanction in this regard. 7. Thus, though there is no dispute before me that the petitioner had spent a sum of Rs.10,08,000/- on renovating the said government quarter during the period, when the petitioner was in occupation and use of the same, yet the fact remains that the occupation and use of the quarter by the petitioner was not in his capacity as a Cabinet Minister, but as husband of the allottee of the said quarter. In such circumstances, money spent by the petitioner, without obtaining prior sanction from the appropriate authority, was wholly illegal and unauthorized. 8. Situated thus, this Court is not in a position to issue writ/writs directing the respondents to make payment of the said amount of Rs.10,08,000/-. In such circumstances, money spent by the petitioner, without obtaining prior sanction from the appropriate authority, was wholly illegal and unauthorized. 8. Situated thus, this Court is not in a position to issue writ/writs directing the respondents to make payment of the said amount of Rs.10,08,000/-. This, however, does not mean, I must hasten to add, that this court has expressed the view that the State Government cannot reimburse the aforesaid amount to the petitioner. 9. While, therefore, tuning down the prayer of the petitioner to issue writ or writs on the respondents, as sought for, this Court leaves the respondent No.1 free to take its own decision in the matter in accordance with law contained in that behalf. 10. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition shall stand accordingly disposed of. 11. No order as to costs. Ordered accordingly.