JUDGMENT 1. Heard Sri Ram Milan Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri H.K. Singh, learned counsel for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for Collector, Ballia and other State Officials. None appeared on behalf of Government/Union of India. 2. Martyrs Memorial Trust (Shaheed Smarak Nyas), Basantpur was constituted by a deed of declaration of Trust authored on 5th June 1997, wherein Sri Chandra Shekhar, (Chairman), Sri N.D. Tiwari and Secretary, Culture, Government of India were the first Trustees. The Board of Trustees is governed by the Trust deed [Para 4(a)]. 3. It is stated that aforesaid Trust was constituted under the orders of Ministry of Human Resources and Development, who had nominated Sri Chandra Shekhar as President of Trust and certain funds were also made available by Government of India for various functions to be discharged by Trust. 4. The Chairman of Trust sent a letter dated 22nd March 2002 to Collector, Ballia stating that the Trust proposed to launch a computer training programme of 'O' and 'A' level for which it has no accommodation and, therefore, Collector may provide appropriate accommodation to the Trust for aforesaid purpose. Sri R.K. Singh, the then Collector, Ballia, vide order dated 26/27th March 2002 allotted government residential house no. 1 and 2 in the name of Collector/Secretary, Shaheed Smarak Nyas, which were vacant at that time for utilisation by Trust. The aforesaid allotment however, has been cancelled by means of impugned order dated 15th May 2009 passed by Pankaj Kumar, the then Collector Ballia observing that since the aforesaid accommodations are not being used for aforesaid purpose, hence allotment is being cancelled and the accommodation shall stand revert back to State for its appropriate use i.e. allotment to government officials for residential purposes. 5. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that once allotment has been made to Trust, the same could not have been cancelled by Collector, particularly, when there is no resolution by Trustees for reverting back the aforesaid accommodation to Collector. He further submitted that order of canncellation has been passed by subsequent official holding the office of Collector, Ballia under political pressure and drew our attention to para 33 and 34 of writ petition. He next submitted that impugned order is vitiated in law having been passed for the reasons of mala fide and reasons other than bona fide. He further submitted that order of canncellation has been passed by subsequent official holding the office of Collector, Ballia under political pressure and drew our attention to para 33 and 34 of writ petition. He next submitted that impugned order is vitiated in law having been passed for the reasons of mala fide and reasons other than bona fide. Lastly, it is submitted that impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and without issuing any show cause notice. Hence, it is bad at law. 6. Learned Standing Counsel, on the contrary, referred to counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 3, 4, 5, and 6 and stated that the Trust is not a department of government and residential accommodations, available for government officers/employees, could not have been allotted for the purpose of Trust. It is further stated that it was found that the aforesaid accommodation was being used to run a private institution i.e. Dr. Ganeshi Prasad Institute of Information Technology and not for official work of Trust, hence also allotment has been cancelled. The residential accommodation is State Government property. The allegations of mala fide i.e. political influence has also been denied in para 35 of the counter affidavit. 7. This writ petition was earlier disposed of by order dated 16.9.2009, which reads as under : "Vide order dated 15th May, 2009 which has been impugned in the present writ petition the allotment of Government Residential accommodation No. 1 & 2 to Shaheed Smarak Nyas, Basantpur, Ballia has been cancelled. We are not inclined to interfere in the said order as the petitioner has no vested right to continue to hold the said accommodation as it is only a licensee. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Standing Counsel assissted by Sri H. K. Singh has submitted that under the garb of the order dated 15th May, 2009, the authorities are also disturbing the peaceful possession of the constructions made in the adjoining land. It is not clear as to whether adjoining land is part of this accommodation or not. If the same is not part of the accommodation No. 1 & 2 then obviously under the garb of this order, the authorities can not disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioner in respect of the constructions made on the adjoining land. It is not clear as to whether adjoining land is part of this accommodation or not. If the same is not part of the accommodation No. 1 & 2 then obviously under the garb of this order, the authorities can not disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioner in respect of the constructions made on the adjoining land. However if the adjoining land on which the construction is alleged is part of the Government accommodation No. 1 & 2, then the allotment having cancelled, the petitioners have no right to object and the authorities are justified on their part. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation. Ms. Poonam Singh, learned counel has appeared for the Respondents No. 1 & 2." 8. The aforesaid order was challenged by petitioners in appeal before Supreme Court and vide judgment dated 4th October 2012, Court has set aside the aforesaid order and has directed this Court to decide writ petition after hearing both the parties and filing counter affidavit by respondents, on merits. 9. The first question is, whether the impugned order is vitiated on account of allegations of mala fide. In this regard, we find that vague allegations of mala fide have been levelled but no person against whom mala fide is alleged has been impleaded as eo nominee in the writ petition. 10. It is well settled that plea of mala fide shall not be entertained by the Court if a person against whom mala fide is alleged has not been impleaded eo nominee. 11. 15. In State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222 in para 55 of the judgment, the Apex Court held: - "It is a settled law that the person against whom mala fides or bias was imputed should be impleaded eo nominee as a party respondent to the proceedings and given an opportunity to meet those allegations. In his/her absence no enquiry into those allegations would be made. Otherwise it itself is violative of the principles of natural justice as it amounts to condemning a person without an opportunity. Admittedly, both R.K. Singh and G.N. Sharma were not impleaded. On this ground alone the High Court should have stopped enquiry into the allegation of mala fides or bias alleged against them." 12. In AIR 1996 Supreme Court 326, J.N. Banavalikar Vs. Admittedly, both R.K. Singh and G.N. Sharma were not impleaded. On this ground alone the High Court should have stopped enquiry into the allegation of mala fides or bias alleged against them." 12. In AIR 1996 Supreme Court 326, J.N. Banavalikar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, in para 21 of the judgment, it has been held as under: - "Further in the absence of impleadment of the..........the person who had allegedly passed mala fide order in order to favour such junior doctor, any contention of mala fide action in fact i.e. malice in fact should not be countenanced by the Court." 13. In JT 1996 (8) S.C. 550, A.I.S.B. Officers Federation and others Vs. Union of India and others, in para 23, the Hon'ble Apex Court has said where a person, who has passed the order and against whom the plea of mala fide has been taken has not been impleaded, the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise the allegations of mala fide. The relevant observation of the Apex Court relevant are reproduced as under: - "The person against whom mala fides are alleged must be made a party to the proceeding. Board of Directors of the Bank sought to favour respondents 4 and 5 and, therefore, agreed to the proposal put before it. Neither the Chairman nor the Directors, who were present in the said meeting, have been impleaded as respondents. This being so the petitioners cannot be allowed to raise the allegations of mala fide, which allegations, in fact, are without merit." 14. In AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1344, Federation of Railway Officers Association Vs. Union of India it has been held as under: "That allegations regarding mala fides cannot be vaguely made and it must be specified and clear. In this context, the concerned Minister who is stated to be involved in the formation of new Zone at Hazipur is not made a party who can meet the allegations." 15. Moreover, even otherwise, allegations being wholly vague and without substantiating or without specifying as to against whom mala fide is alleged, the same cannot be accepted and relied. We therefore, find no ground of mala fide substantiated by petitioner to challenge the impugned order. 16. Next is the question, what was the nature of allotment made to petitioners and what is the legal right vested in it to retain such allotment. 17. We therefore, find no ground of mala fide substantiated by petitioner to challenge the impugned order. 16. Next is the question, what was the nature of allotment made to petitioners and what is the legal right vested in it to retain such allotment. 17. It is not in dispute that accommodation in question is State Government's accommodation meant for allotment to government employees for their residential purpose, who are posted at Ballia. The allotment of residential accommodation of State Government is governed by statutory rules. No provision has been shown that such accommodation can be allotted to anyone, who is not State Government employee. When asked, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that allotment confers a right in the nature of licence upon petitioners. If that be so, licence is revocable, can be revoked at any time and no one has any right to insist that license cannot be cancelled without giving opportunity etc. No provision has been shown to us to claim that same has been violated. 18. Collector has cancelled allotment and it has observed in the impugned order that accommodation would now be allotted to government employees, which is the objective for which such accommodation is constructed and meant for. 19. We do not find any patent illegality or infirmity or any infraction of statutory rights of petitioner so as to warrant interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 20. No other point has been argued. 21. Writ petition has no merit and it is accordingly, dismissed. 22. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.