Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) All the petitions involve similar issues in respect of the validity of the show cause notices issued by the respondent No.2-Estate Officer to the respective petitioners under the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). Therefore all the petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) For the sake of convenience the facts of SBCWP No. 7227/15 are narrated. The petitioner of the said petition has challenged the legality and validity of the notice dated 17.4.15 (Annex.11) issued by the respondent No.2 under Section 4(1) of the said Act, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be dispossessed from the Unit No.1 situated at the Cluster No.1 of the Jem Park, RIICO, the petitioner being an unauthorised occupant of the said unit which is a public premises within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the said Act. The respondent No.1 has filed reply raising preliminary objections as regards the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the proceedings in respect of the petitioner's unit under the said Act are pending with the respondent No.2 and the petition is filed at the premature stage. The petition has been resisted on merits as well. The petitioner has filed the rejoinder to the said reply.
(3.) It has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Rajeev Surana for the petitioner that the impugned notice issued by the respondent No.2 is in complete violation of Section 4 of the said Act, in asmuch as the said notice does not specify the grounds, on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made under the said Act. Relying upon the decision of the Karnataka High Court in case of Damodar Narayana Naik Gardikar v. State of Karnataka & Ors. AIR 1995 Karnataka 225 , he submitted that the very foundation of the notice being illegal and in violation of the specific provision of the Statute, the respondent No.2 has no authority to proceed further with the proceedings under the said Act. Taking the court to the language of the said notice, Mr. Surana has submitted that the said notice is premeditated and that no purpose would be served by replying to the said notice or appearing before the respondent No.2. In this regard, he has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Siemens Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2006) 12 SCC 33 , in which it has been held interalia that when a notice is issued with premeditation a writ petition would be maintainable. Mr. Surana had also sought to argue on the merits of the petition, however the learned counsel Mr. Ajeet Bhandari for the respondent No.1 having raised the preliminary objection against the maintainability of the petition, Mr. Surana was requested to confine his arguments on the said preliminary objections only.;