R. B. Misra, J. - (1.) The present petition under Art. 226 of the Constitu tion of India seeks to challenge the order of the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur, dated 17th May, 1975, arising out of procee dings under the U. P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). It appears that the Nagar Palika, Tilhar, moved an application under Sec. 4 of the Act against the petitioner for his eviction from the public premi ses, as detailed in the application, situate within the limits of Tilhar Municipa lity, and for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,440. 00 p. as damages at the rate of Rs. 20/- per mensem. The damages were claimed for a total period of ten years two months. The petitioner filed an objection, a copy of which has been filed as An-nexure 'c-I' to the counter affidavit. In paragraph 3 of the additional pleas, it has been alleged that the petitioner received no notice under Sec. 4 of the Act. The prescribed Authority, after examining the evidence adduced by the parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was in unauthorised occupa tion of the public premises and, therefore, he was directed to vacate the pre mises and also to pay damages of Rs. 600/- by order dated 19th September, 1974. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order of the prescribed Autho rity, preferred an appeal, but the appeal was dismissed by the 1st Additional District Judge by the impugned order dated 17th February, 1975. The appel late authority also confirmed the finding recorded by the prescribed Authority. As regards the notice under Sec. 4 of the Act, the learned Judge held that a notice in the shape of summons was sent to the petitioner requiring him to show cause as to why he be not evicted from the public premises and that sum mons, in the opinion of the learned Judge, served the purpose of a notice under Sec. 4 of the Act. The petitioner has now come to challenge the order of the authorities below by filing the present petition. Sri Prakash Gupta, appearing for the petitioner, has contended that in the absence of a notice under Sec. 4 of the Act, the entire proceedings were vitiated and the authorities below have committed an error apparent on the face of the record in ordering eviction of the petitioner for non-compliance of the mandatory requirements of Sec. 4 of the Act. It was further contended that even before the passing of the order for damages, no notice had been ser ved on the petitioner, as required under Sec. 7 of the Act. It would be appropriate at this stage to refer to the relevant provisions of Sees. 4 and 7 of the Act. Sec. 4 in so far as it is material for the purposes of the case, reads : 4. Issue of notice to show cause against order of eviction :- (1) If the prescribed authority, either of its own motion or on an appli cation or report received on behalf of the State Government or the corpo rate authority, is of opinion that any persons are in unauthorised occupa tion of any public premises and that they should be evicted, the prescribed authority shall issue in the manner hereinafter provided a notice in wri ting calling upon all persons concerned to show cause why an order of eviction should not be made. (2) The notice shall. (a) Specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made, and (b) Require all persons concerned, that is to say all persons who are, or may be, in occupation of, or claim interest in the public premises, to show cause, if any, against the proposed order on or before such date as is specified in the notice, being a date not earlier than ten days from the date of issue thereof. (3) The prescribed authority shall cause the notice to be served either personally on all those persons concerned or by having it affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises and in any other manner, provided in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (4) Where the Prescribed Authority knows or has reasons to believe that any persons are in occupation of the public premises, then, without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (3), he shall cause a copy of the notice to be served on every such person by registered post or by delivering or tendering it to that person or in such other manner as may be prescribed. " Likewise, Section 7 of the Act provides : 7. Power to require payment of rent or damages in respect of public premises :- (1) Where any person is in arrears of rent for four months payable in respect of any public premises, the prescribed authority may, by order, require that person to pay the same within such time and in such instal ments as may be specified in the order, and on the failure of such person to pay the same or any instalment thereof he shall be deemed to be in unauthorised occupation of the public premises. (2) Where any person is, or has at any time been, in unauthorised occupation of any public premises, the prescribed authority may, having regard to such principles of assessment of damages as may be prescribed, assess the amount of damages on account of the use and occupation of such premises and may, by order, require that person to pay the amount within such time and in such instalments as may be specified in the order. (3) No order under sub-section (I) or sub-section (2) shall be made against any person until after the issue of a notice in writing to the person calling upon him to show cause within such time as may be speci fied in the notice, why such order should not be made, and until his objections, if any, and any evidence he may produce in support of the same having been considered by the prescribed authority. " The prescribed Form made for the notice under Sec. 4 has been provided in Form, 'a' and the notice for the proceedings under Sec. 7 has been provided in Form 'g'. It is now no more in dispute that the notice, as required under Sec. 4, was not issued. The argument even before the appellate authority, was that the summons, which was issued to the petitioner, would serve the pur pose of the notice under Sec. 4. Sri Swami Dayal, appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, con tended that the fact, that the petitioner filed an objection in which he made a passing reference of the application, itself indicates that the petitioner must have examined the record and only then he would be in a position to reply parawise to the application made under Sec. 4 and if the petitioner had an opportunity of examining the record, no prejudice could have been caused to him. He has produced his evidence whatever he thought proper and even if there was non-compliance of Sec. 4, the Court should not :interfere with the order passed by the appellate authority. Sri Prakash Gupta, however, contended that Sec. 4 was the manadatory requirement of law and no proceedings could be initiated against the petitioner, either for his eviction or for recovery of damages unless the notice under Sees. 4 and 7 as required, had been served on the petitioner and as no notices were served on the petitioner under Sec. 4 or under Sec. 7, therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated on that account. The well established principle is that if the law requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, that should be done in that manner or not at all. The statutory requirement of law is that the notice should be in the prescribed form, which contemplates the ground on which the petitioner is sought to be evicted. 'unauthorised occupation' is a defined term. Sec. 2 (g) defines 'unauthorised occupation' in relation to a public premises, means the occupa tion by any person of the public premises without authority for such occupation, and includes the continuance inoccupation by any person of the public premises after the authority whether by way of grant or any other mode of transfer under which or the capacity in which he was allowed to hold or occupy the premises has expired or has been determined for any reason whatsoever, and also includes continuance in occupation in the circumstances specified in sub-section (1) of Sec. 7, and a person shall not, merely by reason of the fact that he had paid any amount as rent, be deemed to be in authorised occupa tion. Section 2 (g) of the Act includes various kinds of persons as unauthorised occupant within its fold. Sec. 4 of the Act requires the issue of a notice in the prescribed form, as provided in the rules giving specific ground on which the person is sought to be evicted. Sec. 4 and the rules prescribed a form for the issue of a notice giving a specific ground on which the petitioner was sought to be evicted. It is true that the petitioner had filed an objection to the application under Sec. 4, but that would not satisfy the requirements of law. The peti tioner might have replied to the application under Sec. 4 parawise, but unless the petitioner knows as to on what ground he is sought to be evicted, he could not effectively file an objection or effectively make a respresentation. The mere fact, that there has been flagrant violation of the mandatory requirement of law, itself causes prejudice to the petitioner and the fact, that he had filed an objection, will net cure the defect. Even the required notice under Sec. 7 before passing an order for damages has not been given to the petitioner and in that respect also there is flagrant violation of sub-section (3) of Section 7. Sri Swami Dayal, in support of his contention, that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner and, therefore, the court should not interfere with the impugned order, referred to Saeed Ahmad v. Murli Dhar and another. In that case, the Election Tribunal allowed the amendment of the election petition on the very same day on which the amendment application was moved without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to object to the proposed amend ment. Proceedings in connection with the hearing of the election petition are quasi judicial proceedings and no order on the application for amendment of the election petition should have been passed without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to have his say in the matter. But, before confirming the order dated 1st January, 1966, the Tribunal asked the petitioner to file his objection and, therefore, if the petitioner was afforded an opportunity and heard before the confirmation of the order, there was substantial compliance. That case has hardly got any relevance to the facts of the present case. In the case in hand, there is a mandatory requirement that no proceedings for eviction can be initiated unless notice, as contemplated under the Act, has been served on the person occupying the premises. Without the service of notice, the procee dings could not have been initiated against the petitioner and, therefore, that case has got absolutely no relevance to the facts of the present case. I find considerable force in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. For the reasons given above, the writ petition must succeed. It is, accor dingly, allowed and the order of the 1st Additional District Judge, Shahjahanpur, dated 17th February, 1975, and the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 19th September, 1974, are quashed. This order, however, will not stand in the way of the respondent for initiating proceedings according to law if it so chooses. However, in the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. .;