IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 8558 of 2014 Sujit Kumar Sahoo & Anr. …. Petitioners Mr. R. Mohanty, Sr. Adv. along with Ms. S. Mohanty, Advocate -versus- Sr. (Manager) (M) (MCFL) & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.S. Kanungo, Adv. for O.P.1 & 2 CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 23.06.2026 04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. Since no notice was ever issued to Opposite Party No.3 by this Court while issuing notice on Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 vide order dtd.01.05.2014, no appearance has been made on behalf of Opposite Party No.3. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners contended that Petitioners being land oustee along with their family members, after they were provided with appointment vide order available under Annxures-3 and 3/A dtd.10.06.2009, with the permission of the authority concerned, they remained in occupation of the quarter in question along with their family members. However, while continuing in possession of the quarter in question, the quarter was allotted in favour of Opposite Party No.3 vide the impugned order dtd.21/23.04.2014 under Annexure-1, the same was challenged with filing of the present Writ Petition. 4.1. It is further contended that this Court while issuing notice of the matter vide order dtd.01.05.2014 passed an interim order to the effect that the Petitioners shall not be evicted from Qr. No. JA/32, pursuant to Annexure-1 order till the next listing. 4.2. It is further contended that in terms of the said interim order, Petitioners are continuing in occupation over the quarter in question as on date. 4.3. It is further contended that prior to issuance of the impugned order under Annexure-1, though an application was made by the Petitioners to allot the quarter in their favour by regularizing the allotment under Annexure-5, but instead of taking a decision on the same, the impugned order under Annexure-1 was passed by allotting the quarter in favour of Opposite Party No.3. 4.4. It is further contended that since it is not disputed that Petitioners are continuing in employment under the MCL and the application made by them for regularization of the quarter in their occupation under Annexure-5 is yet to be decided in accordance with law, without taking any decision on Annexure-5, the impugned order under Annexure-1 could not have been issued by allotting the quarter in favour of Opposite Party No.3. 4.5. It is further contended that during pendency of the writ petition, Opposite Party No.3 has already been allotted with a separate quarter. 4.6. It is accordingly contended that since Petitioners are in occupation of the quarter from the year 2009 and Opposite Party No.3 in the meantime has already been allotted with a separate quarter, Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 be directed to regularize the issue by allotting quarter No.JA/32 in favour of the present Petitioners. 5. Mr. S.S. Kanungo, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 on the other hand contended that since the quarter was never allotted in favour of the Petitioners and their occupation is prima facie illegal, the impugned order under Annexuxre-1 was issued, wherein the quarter was allotted in favour of Opposite Party No.3. However, it is fairly contended that prior to passing of the impugned order an application was there at the instance of the Petitioners under Annexure-5 for regularization of the quarter and for its allotment in their name. 5.1. It is also not disputed that in the meantime Opposite Party No.3 has already been allotted with a separate quarter. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties, considering the submissions made and since it is not disputed that Petitioners are in employment under Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 with issuance of the order of appointment under Annexures-3 and 3/A dtd.10.06.2009 being land oustees, and they are in occupation of the quarter since then; with allotment of a separate quarters in favour of O.P. No.3, it is the view of this Court that claim of the Petitioners for regularization of the quarter with its allotment in their name, requires a favourable consideration. 6.1. This Court accordingly while disposing the Writ Petition directs Opposite Party No.2 to take a decision with regard to allotment of the quarter in question in favour of both the Petitioners as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six(6) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. While taking a decision, allotment of a quarters in favour of Opposite Party No.3 be taken into consideration. Till a decision is taken as directed, no coercive action be taken against the Petitioners. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat