JUDGMENT Shabihul Hasnain, J. Heard Sri Girdhari Lal Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 2. Petitioner has filed this petition against the order dated 27.4.2015, by which the petitioner has been required to forcefully evicted from the residence allotted to him by the Estate Department. 3. Petitioner has clearly admitted that he has been transferred and the order of vacating the house is absolutely right. He also does not deny that he wants to vacate the house. At the same time he has humbly prayed that there is a practical difficulty, which is personal in nature and that the same may kindly be considered by this Court. 4. He undertakes that he will vacate the premises voluntarily after July, 2015 i.e. on or before 1.8.2015 as his daughter is appearing for the medical entrance examination, which will be finalised by the end of July, 2015. He prays that on compassionate ground, his family may be allowed to remain ion the house in question just for two months more. 5. Although the Court is not quite convinced that any interference should be made by the High Court in such matters but the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction on the ground of compassion, equity and good conscious of the Court, as an exception the Court directs that the petitioner may be allowed to remain in occupation of the house in question only till 31.7.2015 and he shall pay the rent as per law during this period and will vacate the house positively on 1.8.2015. Till then the operation of the order dated 27.4.2015 is stayed. It is made clear that the impugned order shall become operative ipso facto on 1.8.2015 and no further orders for eviction is required from any other Court. The opposite parties will be at liberty to evict the petitioner even by force, if they so chooses. 6. At this stage, learned Standing Counsel has informed that the petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No.5869 (M/S) of 2014, Annexure No.2, wherein also he had given an undertaking that he will vacate the house in March, 2015. Accordingly, this is second writ petition on the same subject, which is not maintainable. 7. Moreover, petitioner did not utter single word about this fact in his argument thereby making an attempt to mislead the Court by concealing the material facts. This practice adopted by the petitioner is deprecated. 8. Accordingly, this is second writ petition on the same subject, which is not maintainable. 7. Moreover, petitioner did not utter single word about this fact in his argument thereby making an attempt to mislead the Court by concealing the material facts. This practice adopted by the petitioner is deprecated. 8. The petition is, thus, dismissed. 9. Court restrains itself from imposing cost on the petitioner.