Order Seeking a direction upon the respondents for allotment of Quarter No. 4A/D1147 on lease basis under the SAIL Scheme-2002 and for seeking quashing of letter dated 30.10.2012, the present writ petition has been filed. Prayers for declaration of the recovery made on account of lease rent etc. between the year, 2001 to 2003 and for quantifying the loss amount at Rs. 1500/per month for about 11 years have also been made in the present writ petition. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner is employed with the respondent-SAIL. Initially, he was allotted Quarter No. IVGD2006, Sector IV however, on the request of the petitioner Quarter No. 4A/D1147 was allotted to the petitioner vide letter dated 04.12.2001. However, only 15 days thereafter, allotment of Quarter No. 4A/D1147 was cancelled vide letter dated 19/2012-2001. The petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 233 of 2002 in which vide order dated 09.01.2002 a direction was issued not to evict the petitioner from the quarter in question. Finally, vide order dated 31.10.2002, the writ petition was allowed however, the petitioner was directed to vacate Quarter No. IV/GD/2002, if not yet given, within one month. In the meantime, the petitioner submitted application dated 13.12.2001 seeking allotment of Quarter No. 4A/D/1147 on lease under SAIL Scheme2001. The petitioner thereafter submitted letter dated 17.05.2002, 10.07.2002 and 27.10.2002 and requesting for lease under the said scheme and finally, on 30.11.2002 a legal notice was issued to the respondents however, no allotment was made in favour of the petitioner. Constrained, the petitioner moved this Court in W.P. (C) No. 84 of 2012 which was disposed of vide order dated 13.08.2012 permitting the petitioner to approach respondent no. 4 by preferring a fresh representation. The petitioner thereafter, submitted his representation on 01.10.2012 which has been rejected vide letter dated 30.10.2012 and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondentSAIL stating that an unauthorised occupant was not eligible to obtain quarter on lease as per Clause 5.3 of the Brochure of “SAIL Scheme for Leasing of House to Employees2001”. The petitioner did not apply in prescribed format for allotment on long term lease and he did not pay earnest money. The petitioner retained both the quarters during the period 05.12.2001 to 10.11.2003 for which penal rent of Rs. 10,434/was deducted from his salary. 4. Mr. The petitioner did not apply in prescribed format for allotment on long term lease and he did not pay earnest money. The petitioner retained both the quarters during the period 05.12.2001 to 10.11.2003 for which penal rent of Rs. 10,434/was deducted from his salary. 4. Mr. V. P. Singh, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the reasons for rejection of the representation of the petitioner for allotment of quarter on long term lease basis, as reflected in letter dated 30.10.2012 are patently wrong and thus, not sustainable. It is stated in letter dated 30.10.2012 that the petitioner did not submit application seeking allotment under “SAIL Scheme for Leasing of House to Employees-2001” which is not correct. Another reason for rejection is that the petitioner did not furnish documents which is also not proper because the respondent authority should have given opportunity to the petitioner for submitting documents. It is thus, submitted that since the respondents illegally denied allotment to the petitioner, a direction is required to be issued to the respondent-SAIL for allotment of quarter on long term lease basis to the petitioner. 5. Per contra, Mr. Shresth Gautam the learned counsel for the respondent-SAIL reiterates the stand taken in the counter-affidavit and submits that, more than a decade after the scheme was closed, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 84 of 2012. In view of order passed by this Court in the said writ petition, the representation of the petitioner was considered and by a reasoned order it has been disposed of. 6. I have carefully, considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 7. It is not in dispute that when Quarter No. 04A/D/1147 was allotted to the petitioner, he was in service. In the writ petition it is stated that the petitioner would retire in the month of March, 2015. The allotment made to the petitioner during his service period is inconsequential in so far as, allotment in terms of “SAIL Scheme for Leasing of House to Employees2001” is concerned. The period between 05.12.2001 to 10.11.2003 was treated as unauthorised occupation and penal rent of Rs. 10,434/was deducted from his salary. The allotment made to the petitioner during his service period is inconsequential in so far as, allotment in terms of “SAIL Scheme for Leasing of House to Employees2001” is concerned. The period between 05.12.2001 to 10.11.2003 was treated as unauthorised occupation and penal rent of Rs. 10,434/was deducted from his salary. Though, the petitioner has produced his representation seeking allotment on long term lease basis, the respondent-SAIL has taken a plea that the petitioner did not submit his application in prescribed format and this fact has not been denied by the petitioner by producing his application in prescribed format. The respondent-SAIL has taken a plea that the scheme was closed in the year, 2002 itself however, I find that the petitioner approached this Court in the year, 2012 by filing a writ petition. In order dated 13.08.2012 in W.P.(C) No. 84 of 2012 it is clearly mentioned that the scheme of lease has already been lapsed long ago however, in the said proceeding the petitioner did not raise a grievance with respect to the alleged illegal rejection of his application or non-allotment of quarter on long term lease basis. The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent-SAIL and in compliance thereof, vide letter dated 30.10.2012 his representation has been dismissed. I find no substance in the contention of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that in view of the reasons disclosed in letter dated 30.10.2012, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. It is well settled that even if the order under challenge may not sustain the scrutiny in law, the Writ Court would not interfere in the matter, if such interference would perpetuate illegality. A direction for allotment of quarter in terms of “SAIL Scheme for Leasing of House to Employees2001” cannot be issued by the Court more than a decade after the scheme has been closed. 8. In the result, I find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. Petition dismissed.