- (1.) The petitioners in this WP under art.226 dated December 19,2002 are questioning an order of the estate officer, Calcutta Port Trust dated December 2, 2002 (WP p.40) passed under s.5(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.
(2.) Against the order the petitioners were entitled to appeal under s.9 of the Act. They did not say anything why they chose not to appeal, but to question the order before this Court under art.226. What they have said rather is this :- "76. Your petitioners have no other adequate alternative or efficacious remedy or any other remedy under the law. The prayers asked for herein, if granted, would give complete relief to the petitioners."
(3.) The WP was, however, admitted and it is submitted that an order was passed staying the operation of the order of the estate officer. Under the circumstances, it is to be examined whether counsel for the petitioners is right in saying that since the order of the estate officer is vitiated by jurisdictional errors and breach of the principles of natural justice, the petitioners are entitled to appropriate relief from the Writ Court. Calcutta Port Trust leased out the property in question to the first petitioner for 30 years with effect from September 1, 1968. By a letter dated June 12, 1998 the Port Trust informed the first petitioner that the term of the lease would expire on September 1, 1998, and that the first petitioner should hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the land on September 1, 1998.;