ORDER : 1. Petitioner in the instant writ petition challenges the action of the respondent as per order P.5 dated 17-10-2002 directing him to be treated as trespasser with effect from 31st October, 2002and threatening him eviction under the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 1971. In case petitioner fails to vacate the accommodation. Petitioner is occupying it by virtue of facility granted in Voluntary Retirement Scheme and the notice P.1 dated 28th June, 2001 relating to voluntary retirement by which petitioner was given right to occupy the accommodation for a period of two years from the date of voluntary retirement or up to the date of notional superannuation whichever is earlier. 2. Petitioner was an employee of Hindustan Copper Ltd. he was employed on 1-2-1983 and sought voluntary retirement as per the scheme. The respondent Management considering the circumstances allowed the retention of quarter for a period of two years to tide over the difficulties of the optees because of retirement. Notice P.1 was issued on 28-6-2001 in which petitioner and other similarly place employees were given right to retain the quarter subject to four conditions mentioned in the notice P.1. One of condition was the standard rent fixed has to be paid and secondly the amount of Rs. 1.0 Lac for the officers and Rs. 50,000/- for the workmen had to be deposited with the company as interest free security deposit for retention of quarters. As per third condition the retention is only for two years or the date of notional superannuation of the concerned employee whichever is earlier. Lastly an employee has to pay electricity charges; willingness was also required to be submitted to retain the quarter, which was submitted by the petitioner. Petitioner being workman deposited interest free security of Rs. 50,000/- and his date of notional superannuation has not fallen, hence, petitioner has right to retain the accommodation for 2 years till 30-7-2003. 3. Petitioner submits that petitioner was General Secretary of All India Trade Union Congress (hereinafter referred to as ‘AITUC’) for two years before his retirement. Since November, 2001, he is Vice President of AITUC. Hindustan Copper Ltd. did not revise the pay-scale of its employees as per tripartite agreement and had also not disbursed the wages of employees for about two months. That resulted in an agitation by labour unions, INTUC and AITUC jointly on 30-9-2002. Since November, 2001, he is Vice President of AITUC. Hindustan Copper Ltd. did not revise the pay-scale of its employees as per tripartite agreement and had also not disbursed the wages of employees for about two months. That resulted in an agitation by labour unions, INTUC and AITUC jointly on 30-9-2002. Dharna was organized on 30-9-2002 opposite to the administrative office of Hindustan Copper Ltd. The Cabinet Minister of the State Government of M.P. was also present in the meeting. The meeting was covered by the Media and was widely published. The Management of the respondent, Hindustan Copper Ltd. took ill of the agitation and issued the notice dated 5-10-2002 to the petitioner to show cause why the allotment of his residential quarter be not cancelled owing to the petitioner's participation in the Dharna and speech in meeting. Petitioner submitted reply P.4 asserting that he had neither used any insulting language against the Management nor incited the workers to commit riot or disturb the peaceful atmosphere of the workplace. It was also explained why the rent and electricity bill were not deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner expressed his willingness to deposit the same forthwith and also tendered the arrears of rent and electricity dues. However, the Management refused to accept the same. The Management as per order P.5 dated 17-10-2002 cancelled the allotment and ordered the petitioner to vacate the quarter by 31-10-2002. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court on the ground that the conduct of the petitioner to participate in the agitation made for the benefit of workers, could not be made the basis of show cause and ultimate order of cancellation of allotment. The apprehension of the Management that the peace and tranquility of the workplace may be disturbed because of the speech of the petitioner is baseless. Nothing untoward incident has happened at the workplace or in the township. The allotment has been cancelled on impermissible and illegal ground. The action is insupportable by statutory rule. The petitioner's daughter is a student of Central Academy School and her final examination is likely to be held in April, 2003. Petitioner shall suffer irreparably if he is thrown out of the quarter as per letter P.5. 4. The allotment has been cancelled on impermissible and illegal ground. The action is insupportable by statutory rule. The petitioner's daughter is a student of Central Academy School and her final examination is likely to be held in April, 2003. Petitioner shall suffer irreparably if he is thrown out of the quarter as per letter P.5. 4. In the return filed by the respondent Hindustan Copper Ltd. it is contended that against the order passed by the Estate Officer an appeal lies before the District Judge. That remedy has not been exhausted. Petitioner has failed to comply with the undertaking (R.1) and has further failed to comply with the conditions of licence (R.2) hence the impugned order (P.5) is proper. Petitioner committed misconduct as per the certified standing order dated 30-9-2002 and provoked other employees so that they are encouraged to repeat the violent incidents of 1988. Petitioner was charge sheeted for similar activity in the year 1988. Later on he submitted apology. On 30-9-2002 while delivering a speech he has threatened over mike/PA system to repeat the incidents of March, 1988. The threatening utterances were made, therefore, he was given opportunity to continue as he will not instigate violence. As such petitioner has lost the right to occupy the quarter of the Company. Writ petition is not maintainable. Meeting was otherwise peacefully held only when petitioner addressed, he instigated to other employees to commit violence. Thus, the order is proper and calls for no interference. 5. First question for consideration is whether for the activity of petitioner of delivery of speech on 30-9-2002 in relation to trade union activity and for the similar activity of the year 1988 which has relation with the union, the order P.5 of ejectment treating him as trespasser and directing the petitioner to vacate the quarter, taking away the benefit of voluntary retirement scheme, could be legally passed by the respondent. In my opinion, retention of the house is governed by the Allotment Rules and as per the scheme of voluntary retirement which is totally independent then the activities of the petitioner of delivering the speech and organising Dharna on 30th September, 2002 or in the year 1988. The cancellation of allotment is beyond by the Allotment Rules and the conditions of the scheme of voluntary retirement floated by the respondent. The cancellation of allotment is beyond by the Allotment Rules and the conditions of the scheme of voluntary retirement floated by the respondent. The terms and conditions on which petitioner has been allowed to retain the quarter are clearly mentioned in P.1. Petitioner is liable to pay the standard rent fixed and interest free security and can retain it for two years or date of notional superannuation whichever falls earlier and has to pay electricity charges. I do not find anything in the terms and conditions mentioned in Notice P.1 that petitioner could be treated as trespasser for delivering the speech or for organising the Dharna. No violation of any of Rule of allotment has been shown. The action is entirely arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. An implicit reliance has been placed by the respondent on undertaking furnished by the petitioner which is to be effect that petitioner shall not cause nuisance or unhygienic condition in any manner and shall abide by the Management's order & direction in this connection. The undertaking given by the petitioner is to obey the house allotment Rules. Nuisance and unhygienic condition have the reference to the user of the house not with kind of activity, which cannot be said to be connected with nuisance and unhygienic condition of house. 6. In any case even otherwise for delivering a speech and organising Dharna as petitioner is Vice-President of AITUC, it cannot be said to be an activity on the basis of which respondent could pass the order of the nature as contained in P.5. Even the activity of the petitioner of the year 1988 has been made the ground to treat him as trespasser. Petitioner continued in employment for 13 years till the date of his voluntary retirement thereafter lived peacefully and nothing untoward incident has happened till now, is the averment made in the petition and no incident has been shown which may have happened after delivering the so called speech which was delivered in presence of Cabinet Minister of Government of M.P. It is the case of victimization made of the petitioner for delivering the speech and organising Dharna, which is not to the liking of the Management action smack of arbitrariness and is capricious one. 7. 7. Even otherwise, considering the fact that petitioner has retired voluntarily and is allowed to retain the house for two years in order to rehabilitate him as voluntary retirement scheme has made the wholesome provision of retention of the quarter for two years as voluntary retirement has fallen as per scheme which was not contemplated earlier. Fitness of the things requires that benefit available on the voluntary retirement is not defeated on the ground alleged by the respondent against the petitioner. It is conceded at bar that petitioner has deposited the standard rent and electricity charges and nothing is due on that account. Petitioner has to pay electricity charges and standard rent fixed punctually. 8. Coming to the submission that petitioner ought to have availed the remedy of filing an appeal before the district Judge against the order passed by the Estate Officer, in my opinion, P.5 is not an order of Estate Officer and availability of the alternative remedy is not an absolute bar for entertainment of the writ petition. The order P.5 is not final order of the ejectment against which appeal may lie to the District Judge. The order has not been passed by the Estate Officer but in order (P.5) petitioner has been directed to be treated as a trespasser, however, order P.5 is patently illegal and is liable to be quashed. 9. Resultantly, writ petition is allowed. The order P.5 is quashed. Respondent is directed to allow the petitioner to retain the accommodation till 30-7-2003. Petitioner has to fulfill the other conditions such as deposit of rent, electricity charges regularly. Costs on parties.