JUDGMENT : NANI TAGIA, J. 1. Heard Mr. A. Saring, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also, heard Mr. P. Taffo, learned Standing counsel for the Urban Development and Housing Department, representing the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and Mr. H.R. Obing, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4. 2. By means of this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has put to challenge the order dated 24.02.2020, issued by the Director Housing, vide Memo No. DOH/Accom-04/2012-13 (Vol-II) 8505-10, whereby, the Government quarter No. 22/T-I, located at Niti Vihar, Itanagar, which was allotted to the petitioner has been cancelled. Also put to challenge is the allotment order dated 01.06.2020, issued by the Secretary (Housing), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, vide Memo No. DOH/Accom-05/2012-13 (Vol-II) 8820-26, whereby, the Government quarter No. 22/T-I, located at Niti Vihar, Itanagar, has been allotted to the respondent no. 4. 3. The facts leading to filing of the instant writ petition, briefly stated, are as follows: The petitioner who is working as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the Department of Public Works was transferred from Seppa to the Office of Superintending Engineer, Yachuli Civil Circle, Public Works Department (PWD) on 14.02.2019. While the petitioner was working as LDC in the Office of the Superintending Engineer, Yachuli, the petitioner had submitted an application on 07.06.2019 for allotment of a quarter, pursuant to which the petitioner was allotted Government quarter No. 22/T-I at Niti Vihar, Itanagar, vide allotment order dated 12.02.2020, issued by the Director Housing, vide Memo No. DOH/Accom-10/2012-13 (Vol-III) 9456-51. The petitioner therefore, has filed this writ petition assailing the impugned cancellation order dated 24.02.2020, contending that the said cancellation order was issued behind the back of the petitioner without any notice to the petitioner. The petitioner has also put to challenge the allotment order dated 01.06.2020, issued in favour of the respondent no. 4 by the Secretary (Housing), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, whereby, the same Quarter No. 22/T-I, located at Niti Vihar, Itanagar has been allotted to respondent no. 4. 4. The Housing Department, the respondent nos. 2 amd 3 have filed their counter-affidavit, wherein, it has been stated that the Quarter No. 22/T-I, located at Niti Vihar, Itanagar, was not a vacant quarter. 4. 4. The Housing Department, the respondent nos. 2 amd 3 have filed their counter-affidavit, wherein, it has been stated that the Quarter No. 22/T-I, located at Niti Vihar, Itanagar, was not a vacant quarter. It was allotted to one Smti Markum Marde, Peon, as the present occupant of the said quarter Shri Sadhu Charan Das, Driver, Social Welfare Department had issued No Objection Certificate (NOC) to that effect. But the allotment given to Smti Markum Marde was found to be a double allotment as her husband Shri Tapak Natam, Peon, had also been allotted a Type-I quarter in the same section. In view of the above, Smti Markum Marde, surrendered her quarter allotment on 10.02.2020 and accordingly, the allotment of the quarter given to her was cancelled on 11.02.2020 and thereafter, the allotment of the said quarter to the petitioner was given on 12.02.2020. It has been further stated in the counter-affidavit filed, that after the said quarter was allotted to the petitioner on 12.02.2020, the respondent no. 4, who is an Assistant Teacher (A) Government Primary School, Donyi Colony, Itanagar, had submitted a complaint dated 19.02.2022, contending that the quarter in question not being a vacant quarter, could not have been allotted to the petitioner, in what has been referred to as “advance allotment” in super-session of the entitlement of the respondent no. 4, who is senior to the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the allotment given to the writ petitioner was cancelled by the respondent authorities, vide the impugned cancellation order dated 24.02.2020. The State respondents further contends that thereafter, the said quarter has been allotted to the respondent no. 4 as per station seniority and therefore, there is no illegality committed by the State respondents in cancelling the earlier allotment order of the petitioner and thereafter, allotting the said quarter to the respondent no. 4 on the basis of station seniority. Accordingly, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 contends that contention raised by the petitioner does not have any merit and the same is liable to be rejected. 5. The respondent no. 4 has contested the case by filing a counter-affidavit, wherein, it has been stated that the writ petitioner, who is an LDC in the Public Works Department, was transferred from the Office of the Executive Engineer, Seppa Division to the Office of the Superintending Engineer, Yachuli Civil Circle, PWD, on 14.02.2019. 5. The respondent no. 4 has contested the case by filing a counter-affidavit, wherein, it has been stated that the writ petitioner, who is an LDC in the Public Works Department, was transferred from the Office of the Executive Engineer, Seppa Division to the Office of the Superintending Engineer, Yachuli Civil Circle, PWD, on 14.02.2019. Since the writ petitioner is not posted in Itanagar, the petitioner would not be entitled for a Government accommodation in Itanagar. Accordingly, the respondent authorities could not have allotted the Government quarter No. 22/T-I, located at Niti Vihar, Itanagar, to the petitioner, whose place of posting is at Yachuli, which is in the Lower Subansiri District. The respondent no. 4 further contends that the earlier allotment of the quarter to the writ petitioner was issued on an application filed by the petitioner, misleading the authorities that she has been posted at Naharlagun, whereas, the actual place of posting of the petitioner was at Yachuli. It was on coming to know of the fact that the writ petitioner was actually posted at Yachuli and that the writ petitioner has also suppressed the seniority position of the petitioner, vis-a-vis, the respondent no. 4, that the State authorities had cancelled the earlier order of allotment given to the petitioner and accordingly, in the process no illegality has been committed by the respondent authorities. 6. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder-affidavit, wherein, while replying to the contention raised by the respondent no. 4 that the writ petitioner had obtained the allotment of the quarter by misleading the respondent authorities by stating that the writ petitioner was posted at Naharlagun, has stated that though the petitioner was transferred from Seppa to the Office of the Superintending Engineer, Yachuli Civil Circle, PWD on 14.02.2019, there was no infrastructure available at Yachuli and the Office of the Superintending Engineer, Yachuli, Civil Circle, PWD was functioning from Naharlagun through a camp office and that is how the petitioner had apprised the authority while submitting the application that the petitioner is posted at Naharlagun and therefore, the petitioner has not misled the authorities or suppressed any materials in the application submitted for allotment of the quarter. In the rejoinder-affidavit filed, the writ petitioner has also contended that preference in providing a Government accommodation to a government employee is given to those employees who do not possess their own private residential building in the Capital Complex. The writ petitioner has annexed a land allotment order issued to one Shri Biki Tamo, whereby, a land measuring 32 Sqm has been allotted at C-Sector Itanagar. Shri Biki Tamo is stated to be the husband of the respondent no. 4 and therefore, since the respondent no. 4 possesses a residential building in the Capital Complex and therefore, the respondent no. 4 would not get any preference insofar as the allotment of quarters to the Government employees are concerned. 7. Mr. A. Saring, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that after the Government quarter No. 22/T-I, located at Niti Vihar, Itanagar, was allotted to the petitioner vide allotment order dated 12.02.2020, issued by the Director Housing, vide Memo No. DOH/Accom-10/2012-13 (Vol-III) 9456-51, the said allotment order could not have been cancelled by the impugned order dated 24.02.2020, issued by the Director, Housing, behind the back of the petitioner and accordingly, the same is liable to be set aside and quashed. He further contends that since the respondent no. 4 has her own residential building at Capital Complex by virtue of land allotment given to her husband, the preference in allotment of a Government quarter ought to have been given to the writ petitioner than the respondent no. 4 and given such a preference, the petitioner will have a better claim over the quarter in question then the respondent no. 4. Accordingly, Mr. Saring, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned cancellation order, dated 24.02.2020 as well as allotment given to the respondent no. 4 vide Allotment order, dated 01.06.2020, be set aside and quashed and the earlier Allotment order, dated 12.02.2020, given to the petitioner, be revived. 8. Mr. 4. Accordingly, Mr. Saring, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned cancellation order, dated 24.02.2020 as well as allotment given to the respondent no. 4 vide Allotment order, dated 01.06.2020, be set aside and quashed and the earlier Allotment order, dated 12.02.2020, given to the petitioner, be revived. 8. Mr. Taffo, learned Standing counsel for the Housing Department, on the other hand, has submitted that the “advance allotment” of the Government quarter No. 22/T-I, located at Niti Vihar, Itanagar, to the writ petitioner vide allotment order, dated 12.02.2020, was issued due to the suppression of the fact by the petitioner and thereby, misleading the respondent authorities that the said quarter was lying vacant and that the present allottee of the quarter is due to retire within 1(one) or 2(two) months, which was found to be incorrect and it is because of the above fact that the earlier allotment given to the petitioner was cancelled. He further contends that the allotment of the quarter in question given to the respondent no. 4 after the earlier allotment given to the petitioner was cancelled, was as per the station seniority of the respondent no. 4 and therefore, there is no illegality committed by the respondent authorities in allotting the said quarter to the respondent no. 4, whose station seniority has not been disputed. 9. Mr. H.R. Obing, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 while adopting the submission of Mr. Taffo, learned Standing counsel for the Housing Department has submitted that since the petitioner’s place of posting is at Yachuli, which is in another District, she would not be entitled for any Government accommodation in Itanagar and accordingly, the state authorities could not have allotted the said quarter to the writ petitioner, who is not posted in Itanagar. He further contended that the respondent no. 4 is working as Assistant Teacher (A) at Government Primary School, Donyi Colony, Itanagar since 2015 and accordingly, being posted in Itanagar since the year 2015, she has a better claim than the writ petitioner and accordingly, the quarter allotment order in her favour vide order, dated 01.06.2020, needs no interference by this Court. 10. Rival contentions advanced at the bar have received due consideration by this Court and the materials placed on record have been perused. 11. 10. Rival contentions advanced at the bar have received due consideration by this Court and the materials placed on record have been perused. 11. On perusal of the rival pleadings made by the contesting parties, what calls for determination by this Court are the following: (i) Whether the petitioner could have been allotted the Government quarter No. 22/T-I, located at Niti Vihar, Itanagar, vide dated 12.02.2020, issued by the Director Housing, vide Memo No. DOH/Accom-10/2012-13 (Vol-III) 9456-51. (ii) Whether the respondent authorities could have issued the impugned cancellation order dated 24.02.2020 without affording an opportunity to the writ petitioner. (iii) Whether the respondent no. 4 could have been allotted the quarter No. 22/T-I, located at Niti Vihar, Itanagar, vide allotment order dated 01.06.2020 by the Secretary (Housing), Government of Arunachal Pradesh. 12. Upon hearing the learned counsels for the contesting parties and on perusal of the materials made available on record, it has remained undisputed that the writ petitioner is working as an LDC in the Department of Public Works, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. The writ petitioner was transferred from the Office of Seppa Public Works Division to the Office of the Superintending Engineer, Yachuli Civil Circle, Lower Subansiri District, on 14.02.2019. Though the petitioner was transferred to Yachuli Civil Circle on 14.02.2019, it appears that due to non-availability of the required infrastructure of the Office of the Superintending Engineer at Yachuli, the Office of Superintending Engineer functioned from Naharlagun by establishing a camp office. While the petitioner was working in the camp office established in Naharlagun, the petitioner appears to have submitted an application for allotment of a Government accommodation at Itanagar. Acting upon the application submitted by the petitioner, the respondent authorities had issued the allotment order dated 12.02.2020, whereby, the quarter No. 22/T-I, located at Niti Vihar, Itanagar, was allotted to the petitioner. 13. No materials have been placed before this Court by any of the contesting parties, more particularly by the learned counsel for the petitioner, to show that Government accommodation can be provided to the employees who are working at a camp office, wherever it may have been established. 13. No materials have been placed before this Court by any of the contesting parties, more particularly by the learned counsel for the petitioner, to show that Government accommodation can be provided to the employees who are working at a camp office, wherever it may have been established. In the absence of any materials being placed before this Court that Government accommodation can be provided to an employee working in a camp office, wherever it may have been established, this Court cannot come to a conclusive finding that such an allotment, as in the instant case, is permissible under the law. As far as providing of Government accommodation is concerned, it is ordinarily understood that an employee would be entitled for a Government accommodation, in a place where the employee is posted and the Office is located. If such be the position of law, the writ petitioner having been posted in the office of the Superintending Engineer, Yachuli Civil Circle, which is located in the District of Lower Subansiri, the petitioner would not be entitled for a Government accommodation within the territory of Itanagar or Naharlagun, which is a Capital Complex, located in a place distinct and different from Yachuli, which is in the Lower Subansiri District. 14. Under the circumstances, what follows, therefore, is that the respondent authorities could not have allotted the writ petitioner the Government quarter No. 22/T-I, located at Niti Vihar, Itanagar, vide allotment order dated 12.02.2020 to the petitioner, whose place of posting is at another District, namely, Yachuli. If the writ petitioner could not have been allotted the Government quarter No. 22/T-I, located at Niti Vihar, Itanagar, vide the allotment order, dated 12.02.2020, it would be equally permissible for the respondent authorities to cancel the allotment order dated 12.02.2022, which the respondent authorities did by issuing the impugned cancellation order dated 24.02.2020. 15. In view of the above, I am of the view that since the allotment order dated 12.02.2020 in favour of the writ petitioner is held to be not issued in accordance with the legal entitlement of the petitioner, I am also of the view that no fault can be found in issuing the impugned cancellation order dated 24.02.2020 by the respondent authorities though it may have been issued without notice to the writ petitioner. The question framed under nos. (i) and (ii) are answered accordingly. 16. The question framed under nos. (i) and (ii) are answered accordingly. 16. Insofar as allotment of the Government quarter No. 22/T-I, located at Niti Vihar, Itanagar to the respondent no. 4, vide allotment order 01.06.2020 is concerned, it appears that the quarter in question, is in occupation of one Shri S.C. Das, Driver, Social Welfare, Naharlagun, who is stated to be due to retire sometime in the month of December, 2022. Here again, neither any materials have been placed before this Court as to whether a quarter can be allotted while it is still under occupation of the present allottee; nor any materials as to under which Rules/Guidelines of the Government quarter allotment, the allotment order dated 01.06.2020, has been issued. 17. It has also not been indicated in the counter-affidavit filed by the State respondents, in what manner the case of the respondent no. 4 was considered while issuing the allotment order dated 01.06.2020. It is also not known whether the cases of the other similarly situated applicants were also considered or not. However, the fact remains that the respondent no. 4 is an Assistant Teacher (A) Government Primary School, Donyi Colony, Itanagar, which have not been disputed and therefore, the respondent no. 4 would be entitled to a Government accommodation within Itanagar/Naharlagun. 18. I have also perused the land allotment order given to one Shri Biki Tamo, stated to be the husband of the respondent no. 4. On perusal thereof, it has been noticed that the husband of the respondent no. 4, Shri Biki Tamo has been allotted a land measuring 32 Sqm at C-Sector, Itanagar for commercial purpose. Since the land allotted to the husband of the respondent no. 4 is for a commercial purpose, it can also be not held that the respondent no. 4 is in possession of a private residential building in Itanagar, which would disentitle preferential treatment to the respondent no. 4 for allotment of Government accommodation, as contended by the writ petitioner in the reply-affidavit filed. 19. In view of the above and for the discussions made hereinabove, since no one has challenged the allotment order dated 01.06.2020, whereby, the Government quarter No. 22/T-I, located at Niti Vihar, Itanagar has been allotted to the respondent no. 4 and insofar as in the matter of the entitlement of the quarter in question, the respondent no. 19. In view of the above and for the discussions made hereinabove, since no one has challenged the allotment order dated 01.06.2020, whereby, the Government quarter No. 22/T-I, located at Niti Vihar, Itanagar has been allotted to the respondent no. 4 and insofar as in the matter of the entitlement of the quarter in question, the respondent no. 4 has been found to have a better claim than the writ petitioner, I am not inclined to interfere with the allotment order dated 01.06.2020, issued by the Secretary (Housing), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, vide Memo No. DOH/Accom-05/2012-13 (Vol-II) 8820-26, whereby, the Government quarter No. 22/T-I, located at Niti Vihar, Itanagar has been allotted to the respondent no. 4. Accordingly, for all the reasons stated hereinabove, writ petition lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed. 20. Before parting with the record, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that the writ petitioner is now posted at Capital Complex Division-B since 21.04.2021. Accordingly, writ petitioner also would now be entitled to a Government accommodation by virtue of her being posted within the territory of Itanagar and Naharlagun, subject to availability of such Government accommodation. Accordingly, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner also for providing a suitable Government accommodation as per entitlement under the Rules. 21. Writ Petition is accordingly, disposed of with the above observation.