Order This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.7.2010 passed by the Estate Officer, Bokaro (respondent no. 5) under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 in Case No. A/E 180 of 2005 directing the petitioner to vacate the quarter no. 3C/E/164 B.S. City by 31.7.2010, pursuant to the order dated 6.4.2006 passed in the said case, petitioner also prayed for quashing the appellate order dated 18.8.2009 in Misc. Appeal No. 20 of 2007 passed by the learned District Judge, Bokaro. 2. Mr. R.N. Sahay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that petitioner took V.R.S. w.e.f. 31.8.2003 and then under the scheme for long term lease, he applied for allotment of the quarter under his occupation, on 5.9.2003. He also applied for adjustment of earnest money from his retiral dues. Accordingly, the gratuity was withheld, but without considering the petitioner's application for grant of long term lease, he has been directed to vacate the quarter in question. 3. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-company submitted that petitioner applied for allotment of the quarter in question and requested for adjustment of his earnest money from retiral dues, but thereafter he did not take interest in the allotment of the quarter and did not complete the formalities in that regard. This will be clear from his letter dated 24.9.2003 by which he requested for allowing him to retain the quarter for six months against his gratuity amount. He further requested for extension of time against the gratuity amount. Accordingly, he was allowed to retain the quarter for about one year on payment of all the charges as per the company rules, but thereafter, as he did not vacate the same, the said eviction case was filed. He further submitted that despite service of notice and sufficient opportunity, petitioner avoided to appear in the said case. On considering the evidences and the other materials placed on the record by the respondent-company, the order of eviction was rightly passed. The petitioner filed the said appeal against the said order, but even in the appeal, he did not choose to appear. However, on considering the materials on record, the appeal was dismissed. On considering the evidences and the other materials placed on the record by the respondent-company, the order of eviction was rightly passed. The petitioner filed the said appeal against the said order, but even in the appeal, he did not choose to appear. However, on considering the materials on record, the appeal was dismissed. Thus he submitted that petitioner is liable to vacate the quarter and respondents are entitled to realise all the charges against the quarter from the gratuity of the petitioner and if it is insufficient, by other legal means also. 4. In the reply, Mr. Sahay submitted that the said letters of request for allowing the petitioner to retain the quarter for 6-6 months was procured by the respondent on threatening. 5. It is not disputed by the respondent-company that petitioner applied for long term lease, but it is contended that he did not complete the formalities and thus such application became infructuous/invalid. It further appears that petitioner prayed for allowing him to retain the quarter for six months and for which his gratuity could be withheld. Again he applied for extension for six months in similar manner. The contention of the petitioner that such letters were, written by him under threat/coercion is without any basis. It further appears from the order of the Estate Officer that in spite of service of notice and sufficient opportunity, petitioner choose not to appear. The Estate Officer considered the materials placed on the record and held that petitioner's occupation was unauthorised. Accordingly, he was directed to vacate the quarter. Petitioner filed appeal, but in appeal also he chose not to appear when the appeal was taken up. The appellate court on considering the materials on record dismissed the appeal. 6. Thus, it is clear that after taking voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.8.2003, petitioner retained the quarter unauthorisedly except for a period of one year when he was permitted to occupy it on usual terms of the company. The judgment reported in (2000)9 see 339 in the case of R. Kanthimathi and Anr. vs. Beatrice Xavier (Mrs.) relied by Mr. Sahay is absolutely irrelevant in the present case. Petitioner choose not to raise the plea of his making application for allotment of the quarter before the Estate Officer and before the appellate authority. The judgment reported in (2000)9 see 339 in the case of R. Kanthimathi and Anr. vs. Beatrice Xavier (Mrs.) relied by Mr. Sahay is absolutely irrelevant in the present case. Petitioner choose not to raise the plea of his making application for allotment of the quarter before the Estate Officer and before the appellate authority. Now, he is raising this plea in this writ petition, apparently only to delay the eviction in terms of the impugned orders. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders in this writ petition. 7. Petitioner is directed to vacate the quarter and handover possession of the quarter in question to the respondent no. 3 within four weeks from today. The respondent-company will be entitled to deduct/adjust all the charges for unauthorised occupation of the quarter in question from the petitioner from his gratuity amount and by other legal means. 8. With these observations and directions, this writ petition is dismissed.