- (1.) B. S. Verma, J. Heard Sri Sarvesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the State-re spondent.
(2.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ to issue or der or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned notice (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition), order dated 12. 5. 1991 passed by the Prescribed Authority (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition), order dated 7. 6. 1995 passed, by the respondent no. 1 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition) and the order dated 29. 6. 1995 passed by the respondent no. 1 (Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition ). According to the petitioner the brief facts in short giving rise to the writ petition are that he was not issued no tice under Section 4 (1) of the Public Premises Act (U. P. Act 22 of 1973 ). The notice was confirmed by the Prescribed Authority without hearing to the peti tioner on the ground that in the other case, the order for eviction was passed against one Smt. Kalawati and on the basis of the said order; the petitioner was also ordered to be evicted. Aggrieved by the eviction order, the petitioner preferred appeal which was heard in the absence of the peti tioner and was dismissed on 7. 6. 1995. The restoration application to recall the ex parte order was also dismissed on 29. 6. 1995.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by all the orders, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.;