Rajasthan High Court Bars Dispossession of Employee From Government Quarter Pending Challenge to Sub-Letting Order

Judgment Intelligence

Other

Hari Om Singh v. State of Rajasthan

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17163/2026

Court

Rajasthan High Court

Date of Decision

7 September 2026

Bench

Justice Anand Sharma

Relevant Acts & Sections

Constitution of India — Article 226 (interim order)

Final Outcome

Interim order: no dispossession until the next date; reply within two weeks (paras 6-8). On 29.09.2026 the reply was on record, the case was listed after two weeks, and the interim order was continued.

Source Rajasthan High Court, decided 07.09.2026

View PDF View Full Judgment Text

Key holdings

1. The State was restrained from dispossessing the petitioner from the government quarter until the next date (para 8).
2. The State was given two weeks to file its reply, and the matter was listed on 28.09.2026 (paras 6-7).
3. The State remained free to apply for vacation of the interim protection (para 9).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The petitioner lives with his family in a government quarter in Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur (para 1). He received a notice dated 22.07.2026 alleging that other persons were living there, and replied that at the time of the alleged inspection his daughter, a member of the family, was present (paras 1-2). An order of 03.08.2026 then alleged that he had sub-let the house (para 3). In his writ petition he said that the inspection report was never given to him, that the order varied considerably from the notice, and that the department was pressing to evict him by force (paras 3-4).

Court's Findings

The Court did not decide the challenge at this stage. At the State's request, it granted two weeks to file a reply and listed the matter on 28.09.2026 (paras 5-7). Meanwhile, and until the next date, it directed that the respondent shall not dispossess the petitioner from the government accommodation (para 8). It added that the State remained free to apply to vacate this protection (para 9). The alleged variation between the notice and the order, and the missing inspection report, appear in the order only as the petitioner's case (paras 1-4).

Legal Principle

This is an interim order and settles no question of law. It shows the Court protecting an occupant against dispossession while the State answers a challenge that the cancellation rests on a ground different from the one in the notice (paras 3, 8).