JUDGMENT S.C. Mathur, J. - The petitioner has, through the instant petition, prayed for quashing of Annexures-3 and 4 which are copies of notices dated 17th January, 1987 issued by the Prescribed Authority, opposite party No. 1 against the petitioner under U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act These notices have been issued under Section 4(1) and Section 7 (2) of the Act. In both the notices the petitioner has been described as unauthorised occupant of Flat No. D.-14/5, Rajendra Nagar, Lucknow. He is, therefore, threatened with eviction from the accommodation. In the notice under Section 7 (2) he has been asked to pay damages for his unauthorised occupation of the accommodation in question. The petitioner's plea is that he filed reply to the notices stating therein that he is not unauthorised occupant and that he is in occupation in pursuance of allotment order dated 1st February, 1982. It is asserted that copy of the allotment order has been filed before the Prescribed Authority. After the objections has been filed by the petitioner, the Prescribed Authority allowed time to the Estate Officer and the State of U.P., Opposite Parties 2 and 3 to file rejoinder affidavit to the petitioner's objection but till date no objection has been filed and the case is being adjourned from time to time. In paragraph 16 of the writ petition the petitioner has mentioned several dates on which the case was fixed before the Prescribed Authority but it was adjourned as on account of lack of rejoinder from the side of the state. 2. The writ petition, in this Court, was filed on 20th July, 1987 when it was directed to be put up on 30th July, 1987 to enable the learned Counsel for the state to obtain instructions. Till date learned Standing Counsel has received no instructions. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed that neither the rejoinder is being filed before the Prescribed Authority nor instructions are being given to the learned Counsel for the State because the State has no case. The learned Counsel submits that the State's plea of the petitioner's being unauthorised occupant is completely demolished by the allotment order, copy of which has already been filed before the opposite party No. 1. 3. The learned Counsel submits that the State's plea of the petitioner's being unauthorised occupant is completely demolished by the allotment order, copy of which has already been filed before the opposite party No. 1. 3. It is indeed unfortunate that a simple case like the present one could not be finalised and the state was unable to file rejoinder affidavit to admit or deny the averments made by the petitioner, It is also unfortunate that the learned Counsel for the State has not been able to obtain instructions. However the relief in terms prayed for cannot be granted to the petitioner. The relief claimed is that the notices, copies of which have been filed as Annexures 3 and 4, may be quashed. This order can be passed only by the Prescribed Authority opposite party No 1. The only relief which can therefore be granted at this stage is to issue mandamus to command the opposite party No. 1 to finalise the proceedings without writing for the state's rejoinder. 4. In view of the above the writ petition is partly allowed and a writ of mandamus is issued commanding the Prescribed Authority opposite party No. 1 to dispose of the case arising from the notices dated 17th January, 1987 - Annexures 3 and 4 within three months of the presentation of a certified copy of this order before him. If within this period of three months rejoinder is filed on behalf of the state the same shall be taken into consideration and then the limit of three months will not be applicable but if within this period of three months no rejoinder is filed the Prescribed Authority will dispose of the case finally without waiting for rejoinder on behalf of the State. The petitioner shall be entitled to his costs which are assessed at Rs. 300/- (Three hundred). 5. The learned Counsel for the State has expressed the apprehension that my order may be treated by the Prescribed Authority as recognition by this Court of the allotment order set up by the petitioner. It is clarified that it will be open to the Prescribed Authority to consider the genuineness of the allotment order relied upon by the petitioner.