JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. Learned Standing Counsel fairly stated that issue, which has been raised in this writ petition and the manner in which this writ petition is proposed to be disposed of, he does not want to file counter affidavit and submitted that the writ petition be disposed of considering his oral submission as also the record of writ petition available before this Court. 2. It is contended by Sri Vijay Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner that in the impugned order dated 23.10.2013, there is some calculation mistake in computing total amount, sought to be recovered from the petitioner, and, if this is correctly calculated, this would come to about Rs. 90,000/-. He further contended that had an opportunity been afforded to the petitioner to make submissions in respect to computation of the amount, it could have been demonstrated by him to the authority concerned but since before determining the aforesaid amount, tentative calculation thereof was never communicated to the petitioner and he did not have any occasion to make submissions thereto, the aforesaid calculation error has crept in the impugned order. 3. Learned Standing Counsel fairly stated that since it is not the case of the petitioner that he is not liable to pay any amount, therefore, there is no reason or justification for him not to pay the liability, which is not disputed by him, subject to further determination/re-determination by the competent authority. He also stated that official accommodation has not been vacated by the petitioner so far, therefore, respondents should be left free to take appropriate steps for getting the official accommodation vacated from the petitioner without being influenced by any order passed in respect to the impugned order in this writ petition. 4. In my view, on the one side, there is some force in what has been stated by Sri Vijay Gautam, learned Counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand the submission advanced by learned Standing Counsel also deserve due regard. Since the determination/computation of actual amount, liable to be recovered from petitioner, involves investigation into facts, at the first instance, let it be investigated by the competent authority. But, before directing him to recalculate/recompute the liability on the part of the petitioner, it would be desirable that the petitioner must deposit the amount which, accordingly to him, he is liable to pay. 5. But, before directing him to recalculate/recompute the liability on the part of the petitioner, it would be desirable that the petitioner must deposit the amount which, accordingly to him, he is liable to pay. 5. In these facts and circumstances, subject to deposit of Rs. 90,000/- within fifteen days from today, I permit the petitioner to move a detailed representation before the authority concerned, within three weeks from today, and on such a deposit, as aforesaid; as also the representation, as said above, made by the petitioner, the competent authority shall re-examine/re-compute the same and pass a fresh reasoned order within two months thereafter. 6. The further amount, sought to be recovered from the petitioner or any amount, if found refundable to the petitioner, would be governed by the fresh order now to be passed by the competent authority. 7. Till then and subject to above directions, the impugned order shall remain suspended only to the extent of recovery of the rent/damages and thereafter it shall stand replaced by the fresh order. 8. It is made clear that this order shall not obstruct or restrain the respondents in any manner from taking such steps as permissible in law for getting the official accommodation vacated from the petitioner and the scope of this order is confined only with respect to the amount of rent/penal rent/damages etc., which the petitioner is liable to pay for overstaying/keeping the possession of official accommodation, beyond prescribed period. 9. The writ petition is disposed of in the manner, as stated above.