JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - In this writ petition the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner (Central Division), Cuttack, rejecting the appeal u/s 9 of the Orissa Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') has been assailed. 2. A few facts may be stated. The Petitioner was serving under the State Government and was allotted quarters No. 2RA9/4 at Unit 9 of the Bhubaneswar by the Estate Officer, Bhubaneswar (opposite party No. 2). Consequent upon his retirement from government service, the allotment was cancelled with effect from 14-4-1987. As he did not vacate, eviction proceeding was started against him and by order dated 15-4-1988 the Estate Officer passed an order u/s 5 (1) of the Act directing the Petitioner and other occupants to vacate the premises within 45 days. The Petitioner thereupon presented O. P. P. Appeal No. 161 of 1988 before the Revenue Divisional Commissioner (Central Division), Cuttack (opposite party No. 1) on 26-5-1988. The case was posted for hearing at the stage of admission on 10-6-1988. On that day the learned Advocate for the Petitioner was beard on the question of admission and the case was adjourned to 16-6-1988 for orders on which date the appeal without being admitted was rejected. It may be stated that the records of the proceedings were not called for from the Estate Officer and be was not called upon by service of notice to appear and contest the appeal. 3. Mr. Jayant Das. learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner raised an import ant legal question to the effect that u/s 9 of the Act, a statutory appeal lies to the Revenue Divisional Commissioner from every order passed by the Estate Officer. The appeal is in the nature of a first appeal and the appellate authority namely the Revenue Divisional Commissioner is the final authority of fact. The order in appeal attains finality by operation of Section 10 and there is bar of a suit or other proceedings for challenging the said order according to the provisions of Section 14 of the Act. The order in appeal attains finality by operation of Section 10 and there is bar of a suit or other proceedings for challenging the said order according to the provisions of Section 14 of the Act. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 17 (2) (e), rules have been framed prescribing the manner in which appeals may be preferred and the procedure to be followed in appeals, Rule provides that on receipt of the appeal and after calling for and perusing the records of the proceedings before the Estate Officer, the appellate officer shall hear both parties and decide the appeal on merits. The contention of Mr. Das therefore, is that the statutory appeal preferred u/s 9 of the Act shall have to be disposed of on merits in accordance with the procedure laid down in the rule and cannot be dismissed at the stage of admission without calling for the record of the proceedings and hearing the Estate Officer. He placed reliance on K. Prasad and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1988) 7 A.T.C. 632 in which the Supreme Court reiterated the well settled principle that if a statutory power has to be exercised in a particular manner any exercise of that power has to be complied with that procedure. Mr. D. P. Sahu, learned Standing Counsel urged that the appellate authority having undoubted power of disposal of an appeal on merits after notice to the Respondent has also such power to dismiss an appeal summarily if on judicious application of mind it appears to it that the appeal ex facie is without any merit and further probe is unnecessary. So it stated that learned Counsel appearing for both parties did not cite any authority in support of their respective contentions except a couple of decisions which were of no help to decide the issue. It is therefore, necessary for us to interpret the relevant provisions of the Act and the rules and the analogous provisions in the codes of civil and criminal procedure. 4. Order XLI of the CPC ('Code') for short deals with the procedure for admission of appeals from original decrees. As appeals have been provided by the statute these are also statutory appeals. 4. Order XLI of the CPC ('Code') for short deals with the procedure for admission of appeals from original decrees. As appeals have been provided by the statute these are also statutory appeals. There is a specific provision in Rule 11 thereof empowering the appellate Court to dismiss an appeal after hearing the Appellant or his pleader sending for the records, if it thinks fit, and without serving notice on the Respondent or his pleader. If the appeal, however is admitted then the procedure laid down in the other rules are followed. Order XLI of the Code lays down the procedure for appeals from appellate decrees. By virtue of the provision of Rule 1, the rules of Order XLI are applicable with regard to admission and hearing and an appeal from the appellate decree which can also be disposed of in the same manner as an appeal from the original decree as provided in Rule 11 of Order XLI. Order XLIII lays down the procedure for appeal from orders and the rules of Order XLI apply so far as they may be applicable. From these provisions of the Code it is manifest that appeals from original decrees appellate decrees and orders in appropriate cases can be summarily dismissed after hearing the Appellant or his pleader, sending for the records if it is found necessary, but without serving notice on the Respondent or his pleader. Section 384 of Chapter XXIX of the Code of Criminal Procedure specifically provides for summary dismissal of criminal appeals by the appellate Court if it considers that there is no sufficient ground for interfering with the judgment appealed against. The safeguard the appellate Court must take care of however, are the Appellant or his pleader should have reasonable opportunity of being heard in support of the appeal and the appellate Court may send for the records. If only the appeal is admitted, the procedure laid down in the subsequent sections of the same chapter shall have to be followed. It is therefore, clear that there are statutory provisions for summary disposal of civil and criminal appeals and it is well known that Courts do summarily dismiss such appeals in exercise of the statutory powers referred to above. 5. Section 9 of the Act makes provision for an appeal to the Revenue Divisional Commissioner from every order passed by the Estate Officer. 5. Section 9 of the Act makes provision for an appeal to the Revenue Divisional Commissioner from every order passed by the Estate Officer. According to Section 10 every order of the appellate authority is final and cannot be called in question in any original suit application or execution proceedings. There is a specific provision in Section 14 to the effect that no suit or other proceeding in respect of matters or disputes for determining or deciding which provision is made in the Act shall be instituted in any Court of law except under and in conformity with, the provisions thereof. The provisions of Sections 10 and 14 are stringent indeed and to a large extent have curtailed the right of a person aggrieved by an order of the Estate Officer or the appellate authority and have vested authority of finality with them. In other words by virtue of these provisions wide powers have been vested by the statute on them, so much so that their decisions shall be treated as final and cannot be called in question before any forum or authority. In keeping with these provisions, Rule 8 of the Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Rule's 1962 (referred to as the ('1962 Rules') provided as follows: 8. Procedure in appeals: (1) An appeal preferred u/s 9 of, the' Act shall be in writing, shall set forth concisely the grounds of objection to the order appealed against and shall be accompanied by a copy of such order. (2) On receipt of the appeal and after calling for and perusing the record of the proceedings before the Estate Officer, the appellate officer shall appoint a time and place for the hearing of the appeal an~ shall give notice thereof to the Estate Officer against whose orders the appeal is preferred and to the Appellant. The 1962 Rules were repealed by Rule 11 of the Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Rules, 1988 (referred to as the 1938 Rules') framed by the State Government in exercise of power conferred by Section 17 of the Act. By operation of Rule 1 (2) these rules came into force on 8-2-1988 when they were published in the official gazette. The provisions of Rule 10 of the 1988 Rules are almost identical to Rule 8 of the 1962 Rules with some more additions and is quoted below: 10 (1). By operation of Rule 1 (2) these rules came into force on 8-2-1988 when they were published in the official gazette. The provisions of Rule 10 of the 1988 Rules are almost identical to Rule 8 of the 1962 Rules with some more additions and is quoted below: 10 (1). The memorandum of appeal filed u/s 9 of the Act shall precisely state the grounds of objection to the orders appealed against and shall be accompanied by a copy of such order. (2) on receipt of the appeal the appellate authority shall call for the records of the proceedings before the Estate Officer and such other particulars as may be required and shall appoint a date and time for the hearing of the appeal by sending notice thereof, to the Estate Officer against whose orders the appeal is preferred and to the Appellant as wen as the authority concerned under whose administrative control the promises situates. (3) The Appellant shall along with the memorandum of appeal supply apples thereof to be served on the Respondents. Sub-rule (2) thereof is of primary importance because it prescribes a particulars mode of disposal of an appeal u/s 9 of the Act. According to it on receipt of an appeal the appellate authority shall have to follow the following procedure ; (a) The records of the proceedings before the Estate Officer shall be called for along with such other particulars as may be required; (b) A date and time for hearing the appeal shall be appointed by sending notice thereof to the Estate Officer against whose order the appeal is preferred; (c) Notice of the date and time of hearing shall be sent to the Appellant; (d) Such notice shall also be sent to the authority concerned under whose administrative control and premiss situates; and (e) As contemplated in Sub-rule (3) copies of the memorandum of appeal shall be supplied so as to be served on the Respondents. The procedure is of mandatory character because of the use of the word shall in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10. The procedure is complete by itself and does not admit of any departure to be made by the appellate authority. The procedure is of mandatory character because of the use of the word shall in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10. The procedure is complete by itself and does not admit of any departure to be made by the appellate authority. It does not give any discretion to it to dismiss an appeal summarily without sending for the records and causing service of notice to the Estate Officer the Appellant as well as that authority concerned under whose administrative control the premises situates. There is also no other provision in the 1988 Rules authorising the appellate authority for summary dismissal of an appeal. 6. Having regard to the provisions of the Act and the Rules we are of the view that the appellate authority has not been conferred with any specific power to dispose at/dismiss an appeal preferred before it in a summary manner. It has to comply with Rule 10 of the 1988 Rules. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be supported and the appeal has to be remanded for disposal in accordance with law in the light of the discussion made in this judgment. . 7. For the reasons stated above the petition is allowed and: the impugned order is quashed. O. P. P. Appeal Case No. 161 of 1988 is remanded to the appellate authority for disposal in accordance with law. The records may he sent back forthwith. There shall be no order as to costs. V. Gopalaswamy, J. 8. I agree. Final Result : Allowed