Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:92249 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7711 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ramakant Yadav @ Ramakant Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vidya Dhar Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri V.D. Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has questioned the order dated 20.05.2025, whereby, it was directed that since he has failed to vacate the premises which is an official accommodation despite the fact that he had already been transferred, Deputy Police Commissioner, Commissionerate, Kanpur Nagar directed for his forceful eviction. It transpires from the record that petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing a petition being Writ-A No.9863 of 2024 with a prayer that he may be permitted to retain the official accommodation as the wards were studying in class 10 of which the session will end only on 30.04.2025. 3. The Court entertained the petition considering the circular letter and found that the petitioner to be falling within the category of those employees whose wards were studying in terminal classes and were permitted to retain the official accommodation. Petitioner was permitted accordingly to retain the official accommodation till 30.04.2025 as the session would have to come to an end on 30.04.2025 and the order directing the petitioner eviction from official accommodation came to be suspended. It further transpires that just before the termination of academic session of class 10, petitioner made a representation on 12.04.2025 that he may be permitted to retain the official accommodation as these were the Naxalites affected areas. However, taking recourse to the deadline given under the order of this court, petitioner has directed to forceful eviction under the order impugned. The plea taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has already filed an application for stay extension which is pending consideration in Writ-A No.9863 of 2024. 4. In my considered view, against the order impugned two courses remained open for the petitioner; either to challenge this order by moving an amendment application in the pending petition or to pursue the said stay extension application 5. No second petition could have been entertained only on the ground that these were the Naxalite affected areas, where the posting of the petitioner has been given, so the family should be continued at a place of official accommodation and hence petitioner should be permitted to retain the same. 6. In my considered this plea was open to be taken by the petitioner in the pending petition and no second petition is entertainable and this ground stands hit by the principle of constructive res judicata. Even otherwise second petition for the same cause of action would not be entertainable, in view of the rule 7 of chapter 22 of the rules of the court. 7. Hence, I decline to grant indulgence in the matter. It will remain open for the petitioner to pursue the remedies already referred to hereinabove, if he is so advise. Order Date :- 27.5.2025 S.A. Digitally signed by :- SALMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad