ORDER : 1. The petitioner in CWJC No. 22646 of 2013 has prayed for a direction to the respondents to get the quarter no. 9 situated at Bailey Road, Patna vacated from the possession of the respondent no. 7 who happens to be the petitioner of the second writ petition and the same be restored in his favour in terms of Memo No. 6686 dated 18.06.2013 as contained in Annexure-1. 2. The second writ petition has been filed by the respondent no. 7 of the first writ petition who prays for a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Memo No. 16673(bh) dated 26.12.2013 placed at Annexure-1 to the second writ petition issued by the competent authority, Building Construction Department, Bihar, Patna requesting the District Magistrate, Patna to get the quarter no. 9 situated at Bailey Road, Patna vacated from his possession. 3. Since the issues raised in the two writ petitions are overlapping hence both the writ petitions have been taken up for consideration side by side. Further since the issue involved in the two writ petitions are common, I shall be referring to the position of parties and the Annexures as appearing in the first writ petition unless clarified by specific reference to the second writ petition. 4. The quarter in question i.e. quarter no. 9 situated at Bailey Road, Patna was allotted in favour of the respondent no. 7 vide order bearing Memo No. 570(4) dated 7.6.2013 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Bihar Vidhan Parishad as contained in Annexure-2 to the second writ petition bearing CWJC No. 1031 of 2014 and he came over the possession of the house immediately thereafter which again is an admitted position. While the respondent no. 7 occupied the house in question, a second allotment order was issued, this time again by the Building Construction Department allotting the same house in favour of the writ petitioner Md. Tausif Alam vide Memo No. 6686 dated 18.06.2013 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Surprisingly, neither the order is endorsed to the respondent no. 7 nor it refers to the earlier allotment order rather in a sweeping manner the Estate Officer has while issuing the allotment order cancelled the earlier orders. It appears that realising this situation where the house was already allotted in favour of the respondent no. Surprisingly, neither the order is endorsed to the respondent no. 7 nor it refers to the earlier allotment order rather in a sweeping manner the Estate Officer has while issuing the allotment order cancelled the earlier orders. It appears that realising this situation where the house was already allotted in favour of the respondent no. 7 and again allotted in favour of the writ petitioner, a letter was written by the Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department, Patliputra Division, Patna addressed to the Additional Secretary, Bihar Vidhan Parishad requesting him to cancel the allotment order issued in favour of the respondent no. 7 and for issuing appropriate directions requesting him to vacate the same. This is again not in dispute that this letter was never acted upon inasmuch as no order was issued by the Vidhan Parishad cancelling its earlier order of allotment dated 7.6.2013 as contained in Annexure-2 to the second writ petition. 5. Whereas the petitioner Md. Tausif Alam is a member of the Legislative Assembly, the respondent no. 7 is a member of the Legislative Council. Since no action was being taken by the respondent authorities of the Vidhan Parishad in getting the quarter vacated that the writ in question was filed for the direction as already detailed hereinabove. The pleadings do not reflect that the petitioner even moved the Vidhan Sabha for allotment of a house rather it is in circumstances where an allotment was made in his favour but was not being carried out by reason of the respondent no. 7 occupying the house that the writ petition in question was filed. In between an order was issued by the Building Construction Department through its competent authority requesting the District Magistrate, Patna to get the quarter in question vacated from the possession of the respondent no. 7 and which led to the filing of the second writ petition. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Building Construction Department and in which while admitting to the shifting of the houses falling in the central pool, Vidhan Sabha pool and the Vidhan Parishad pool from one pool to another, it was sought to be canvassed that the quarter in question at present did fall in the central pool and thus was allotted in favour of Md. Tausif Alam. Tausif Alam. While making such submission it was mentioned that the quarter in question was wrongly allotted in favour of the respondent no. 7 and it is in this background that the request was made to the District Magistrate for getting it vacated vide letter dated 1.8.2013 placed at Annexure-3 to the writ petition and it was followed by the letter dated 26.12.2013 impugned in the second writ petition. Interestingly while making submissions before this Court that there has been a shifting of the houses in amongst the three pools, it is nowhere clarified by the Estate Officer who is the deponent of the counter affidavit as to on which date the house in question came under the central pool even when no objection was raised by the Building Construction Department when the said house was allotted in favour of the respondent no. 7. 7. This Court had occasion to consider the stand taken by the Estate Officer, Building Construction Department in another set of writ petitions filed by the erstwhile ministers upon receiving the orders of vacating the quarters and in which an attempt was made to demonstrate that the house allotted from the central pool was meant for ministers. In fact while filing a counter affidavit in CWJC No. 17773 of 2013, Mr. Chaudhary has admitted that the quarter allotted to the petitioner was not earmarked for the ministers. This was the stand taken by Mr. Chaudhary to oppose the writ petitions filed by the erstwhile ministers. If this quarter was not meant for a minister and was already allotted to a member of the Legislative Council then where was the circumstance to oust the respondent no. 7 from the said house to accommodate the writ petitioner who is admittedly not a minister but a member of the Legislative Assembly. I find no reason to distinguish their status. 8. The Building Construction Department has also not bothered to explain that once their request to the Vidhan Parishad for getting the house in question vacated did not find favour how did they derive power to order for vacation of the respondent no. 7 even when they did not make the allotment rather it was made by the Vidhan Parishad. 8. The Building Construction Department has also not bothered to explain that once their request to the Vidhan Parishad for getting the house in question vacated did not find favour how did they derive power to order for vacation of the respondent no. 7 even when they did not make the allotment rather it was made by the Vidhan Parishad. It is obvious that the Building Construction Department was trying to exercise jurisdiction over a house which they never possessed as the allotment was made by the Vidhan Parishad and not the Building Construction Department. 9. My observations aforementioned would in manner be construed to dilute the claim of the petitioner Md. Tausif Alam for a house as a member of the Legislative Assembly but then the responsibility would fall upon the Vidhan Sabha and since no relief was directed against the Vidhan Sabha, hence no direction can be issued in this regard. Nonetheless the order passed in the present proceedings would not preclude the petitioner Md. Tausif Alam from approaching the Vidhan Sabha for allotment of appropriate house in his favour and which would be considered and disposed of expeditiously. However, considering the matter in its totality, the action of the Building Construction Department as questioned by the respondent no. 7 in the second writ petition cannot be upheld and the eviction notice dated 26.12.2013 as contained in Annexure-1 to CWJC No. 1031 of 2014 is quashed and set aside. 10. CWJC No. 22646 of 2013 is accordingly disposed of with the observations aforementioned and CWJC No. 1031 of 2014 is allowed.