@#@#@#@#@#@#@ HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU WRIT PETITION NO:15055 of 2000 DATED: 23-01-2008 Between: Rajesh Agarwal ..... PETITIONER AND The Defence Estate Officer, Andhra Pradesh Circle, Court Complex, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENT @#@#@#@#@#@#@ ORDER: This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner to call for the records of the respondent pertaining to the order dated 31-07-2000 served on the petitioner directing to remove the structures in the premises in question and to quash the same by holding that it is illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires of the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (for brevity ‘the Act’). The petitioner claims that he is a licencee under licence deed dated 03-07-2000 from the licensor for carrying on business of conducting functions. He came into possession of the property in pursuance of the licence deed. He stated that Hosang S.Chenoy purchased the said property in a Court auction and now it is owned by Mrs.Naja H.Chenoy as absolute owner and possessor of the said property. The impugned order was questioned by the petitioner on the ground that the procedure prescribed under the Act is not followed. As per Section 5-A (2) the authorities concerned are supposed to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner and after giving opportunity to the petitioner the authorities ought to have passed order under clause (3) of the said Section. The order was directly under clause (3) without issuing any notice giving opportunity to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Learned counsel for the respondent also could not show whether any such notice was issued prior to the impugned order though they are asserting that the petitioner and his licensor have no right over the property and it is the Government land and that the petitioner is having only occupancy rights over the said property. Therefore, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. The order dated 31-07-2000 passed by the respondent is set aside. The respondent is at liberty to take appropriate action by following the procedure prescribed under law and this order will not come in the way in taking further steps according to law. No order as to costs. _________________ 23rd January, 2008 SKM