Order : (SAMEER JAIN, J.) 1. The crux of the present batch of writ petitions pertains to the grievance raised by the petitioners, who are medical professionals by occupation. It is specific case of the petitioners that the government accommodations in question were duly allotted to them in accordance with the applicable service rules and policies, and such allotments remained valid up to the date of their respective superannuation. However, the petitioners were subsequently directed to vacate the said premises, purportedly to facilitate the accommodation of a Personal Secretary or staff member associated with the Hon’ble Chief Minister. Learned counsel for the petitioners had, on earlier occasions, vehemently contended that this action on the part of the respondent authorities is vitiated by arbitrariness and mala fides, and that it has resulted in grave, undue and hostile discrimination against the petitioners, who are persons with visual impairments. It is further submitted that the said premises was re-allotted to individuals who are politically influential and close to well-positioned political powers, thereby reflecting a clear abuse of power and violation of the principles of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India . However, on the erstwhile date of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner had apprised the Court with the fact that albeit the petitioners herein have handed over the keys of the premise in question, in the premises in question a number of commercial activities were running and persons who are in possession of the said properties are different than the person to whom the same is allotted. 2. In this background and taking note of the seriousness of the matter raised in the petitions and considering the implications of the alleged continued unauthorized occupation in the government accommodations, this Court, vide order dated 24.02.2025, appointed Mr. Divyesh Maheshwari as the Court Commissioner for the purpose of conducting a detailed inspection and preparing a report with respect to the ongoing commercial activities and the presence of individuals unlawfully residing in the subject accommodations situated in Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur after conducting physical verification and inspection of the area in question. These include persons who have continued to occupy the premises despite being superannuated, transferred, or who have sub-let the premises, all in contravention of the provisions laid down under the Rajkiya Awas Avantan Niyam , 1958. 3. These include persons who have continued to occupy the premises despite being superannuated, transferred, or who have sub-let the premises, all in contravention of the provisions laid down under the Rajkiya Awas Avantan Niyam , 1958. 3. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the learned Court Commissioner has submitted a report in a sealed cover. It is submitted that the said report is based on physical inspection undertaken in compliance with the directions of this Court, and the inspection was being carried out with due protection provided by the concerned jurisdictional Police Station and during the inspection the Court officials were accompanied by a male constable, a female constable, and an appointed officer, namely Ms. Yogita Vishnoi, Asst. Secretary, GAD. 4. It is further submitted by the learned Court Commissioner that, upon verification in G-Block of the Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur area various instances of unauthorized occupation and commercial activities were observed, in contravention of applicable Rules and Regulations. It was found that a number of residential premises, originally allotted to government employees, are being occupied by persons who are retired, transferred, or otherwise unauthorized. 5. The Court Commissioner reports that several houses were observed to be involved in commercial activities, including but not limited to catering services, food-related businesses, BNBs and dairy operations (Supporting documentation, including color photographs, is submitted alongside the report to substantiate these findings). 6. It is further submitted that the premises at House No. G-774 were physically inspected, which were found under possession of one Mr. Upendra Singh. The inspection team encountered resistance and protest during the visit by a numbers of persons present in the said premises and an inappropriate and misbehaved telephonic conversion occurred amongst Mr. Upendra Singh and the inspecting authorities. It was observed that a full- fledged catering business was being run from the premises, and the presence of utensils, vegetables in bulk quantity, large- sized/commercial gas cylinders, and other paraphernalia indicative of commercial operations were found, clearly unsuitable for domestic use. It was revealed upon further enquiry that individuals from outside the State/other states are allegedly operating the said commercial activity. 7. Furthermore, a complaint (dated 27.03.2025 – Annexure MA-4) was presented by Ms. Yogita Vishnoi, the Special Officer appointed, alleging verbal abuse and threat to life, whilst conducting the said inspection and in furtherance thereto by a person named Mr. Upendra Singh. It was stated that Mr. 7. Furthermore, a complaint (dated 27.03.2025 – Annexure MA-4) was presented by Ms. Yogita Vishnoi, the Special Officer appointed, alleging verbal abuse and threat to life, whilst conducting the said inspection and in furtherance thereto by a person named Mr. Upendra Singh. It was stated that Mr. Upendra Singh had also made an attempt to assault her daughter, by releasing his ferocious dog over her. However, despite filing a formal complaint with the Police Station, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Greater, Jaipur (dated 29.03.2025 – Annexure ME-5) and the Joint Secretary (Annexure-MA-3), no FIR was registered by the Police Station concerned. 8. Upon consideration of these facts and the submissions made by the appointed officer, this Court had previously issued bailable warrants against the residents of G-774. In compliance with the said order, Mr. Upendra Singh appeared before this Court today and has taken the plea of alibi. He claims that the premises are operated by distant relatives and that he is engaged in NGO work. He has sought an opportunity to file a reply to the allegations. 9. Learned Additional Advocate General (AAG), Mr. G.S. Gill, after fairly conceding the fact that hindrance was caused to the officers who were carrying out inspection as per the directions of the Court, has assured that appropriate action will be taken within an upper limit of 30 days from the date of this order, in respect of the issues pertaining to the Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur. Unauthorized occupants of not only the G-Block but qua the entire Gandhi Nagar scheme shall be evicted, and all illegal commercial activities in residential units shall be immediately discontinued, after following the due procedure of law i.e. serving of eviction notices to the unauthorized persons and after granting due audience to such persons. 10. Despite specific directions by this Court to the learned Public Prosecutor to ensure the presence of the concerned Station House Officer (SHO) who had not acted in accordance with law and had not registered the FIR in question, the SHO concerned failed to appear at appropriate time, which prima facie reflects deliberate non-compliance and is in clear violation of the provisions the Rajasthan Police Act , 2007 and the constitutional safeguards guaranteed to the citizens. However, the SHO, Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur has marked presence at a belated time and upon marking presence this Court is in receipt of a statement by SHO Shri Ram Kripal that the complainant- Ms. Yogita Vishnoi had approached the Police Station, but the FIR was not registered at the relevant time by the concerned SHO at that time- Ms. Mamta Meena. 11. In view of the above and taking note of the seriousness of the matter, the fact that the concerned SHO, Bajaj Nagar had not registered the FIR of a lady public officer who whilst rendering her duties faced difficulties, the Commissioner of Police who is also marking presence/ appearing via VC in other matters listed on the date noted herein below, is directed to apprise this Court with the status and the investigation carried insofar in the matter in hand. The concerned SHO, Ms. Mamta Meena (erstwhile SHO), is also directed to appear in person and tender reasonable explanation in regard of the contentions noted hereinabove. 12. While exercising the powers of the Court as enshrined in the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India , Section 528 of BNSS and the ratio encapsulated in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh : (2014) 2 SCC 1 , State of Andhra Pradesh v. Punati Ramulu : 1993 Supp (3) SCC 302 and P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras : (1970) 1 SCC 595 is further directed that the FIR regarding the alleged assault on the public servant be registered forthwith, and a fair, impartial, and expeditious investigation be conducted in accordance with law. The investigation report shall be submitted before this Court before the next date of hearing. 13. It can be deduced from the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing herein, learned Court Commissioner and Ms. Yogita Vishnoi that the actions of Mr. Upendra Singh of wilfully abstaining a public officer from rendering her lawful duties vis-a-vis the inspection of premises, acting in an undesired manner, entering into inappropriate telephonic conversation and speaking scandalous and derogatory language qua a judicial body and the officer appointed thereby; an opportunity to file a reply/explanation is granted to Shri Upendra Singh and the persons who were present in G-774 on the date of alleged incidence and thereafter. 14. The report submitted and efforts made by the learned Court Commissioner, Mr. 14. The report submitted and efforts made by the learned Court Commissioner, Mr. Divyesh Maheshwari, are appreciated by this Court for its thoroughness and objectivity. The same is taken on record. A copy thereof be furnished to the learned AAG for necessary action. 15. The Learned AAG is further directed to ensure the payment of fees to the learned Court Commissioner upon submission of the bill without delay. 16. List the matter on 05.05.2025 at 11.00 am, before this Court. 17. In the meantime, requisites be carried out and the aforementioned directions be complied with, pronto.