approach this Hon’ble Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 5267 of 2025 and W.P.(C) No. 6720 of 2025. Learned counsel further submits that, in W.P.(C) No. 5267 of 2025, this Hon’ble Court directed Respondent No. 6 to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation seeking retention of the quarter and protection against eviction. Thereafter, in W.P.(C) No. 6720 of 2025, this Hon’ble Court, taking note of the earlier interim order, again directed Respondent No. 6 to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation regarding retention of the quarter and protected the petitioner from eviction. It is further submitted that, upon subsequently obtaining a copy of the order dated 11.12.2025, the petitioner preferred an appeal before Respondent No. 2, which was thereafter transferred to Respondent No. 3. However, Respondent No. 3, vide the impugned order dated 23.07.2026, dismissed the appeal without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and the protection granted by this Hon’ble Court in the aforesaid writ petitions. Learned counsel submits that the authorities have failed to consider the petitioner’s claim for retention of the quarter in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1974 and have proceeded to direct the petitioner to vacate the quarter within three days. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned orders suffer from illegality, arbitrariness and non-application of mind and are liable to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel accordingly prays that the respondents may be restrained from evicting the petitioner from the quarter and the petitioner may be permitted to retain the same in accordance with law.
