CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J, J. ( 1 ) THIS matter coming up for orders on LA. I is taken up for final disposal and disposed of by the following order after hearing the Counsel for petitioners and the contesting respondent. ( 2 ) THE first petitioner claims to be the widow one R. M. Samiulla who at the time of the death was a member of the Railway Protection Force holding the rank of Head Constable at Wheel and Axle Plant, Yelahanka. The said Samiulla was permitted to reside in quarters bearing No. 318/h in M. G. Colony, Magadi Road, Bangalore, which is in the pool of quarters available to the railway Protection Force. The first petitioner was permitted to stay for a period of 6 months on compassionate grounds on payment of normal rent in accordance with the rules in force in that behalf. In the meanwhile, the 2nd petitioner the son of the deceased Samiulla was given a job as khalasi and has been appointed by the Railways as Khalasi. ( 3 ) IN this writ petition, they are aggrieved by the quit notice given as at Annexure-H which reads as follows:"you were permitted to retain the railway quarters No. 318/h at SBC for a total period of 6 months from 19-1-89 to 18-7-89. You should have vacated the quarters on or before 18-7-89 which you have failed to do inspite of this office letters of even No. dated 27-6-89 and 24-7-89. Your continued occupation of the Railway accommodation beyond 18-7-89 is unauthorised. Please take note if you fail to vacate the above said railway quarters within 7 days from the date of receipt of this letter, necessary action will be taken to evict you from the quarters as provided in Rule 120 (3) of railway Protection Force Rules, 1987. Please note and acknowledge receipt. "thereafter, admittedly, the first petitioner prayed for extension of time which is evidenced by the true copy of the letter filed along with statement of objections of the 2nd respondent, which is marked as Annexure-R2. ( 4 ) PETITIONERS' Counsel contended that under the Rules, she is entitled to continue in the quarters particularly in view of the Circular issued by the Divisional Office, Southern Railway, personnel Branch, Bangalore. ( 4 ) PETITIONERS' Counsel contended that under the Rules, she is entitled to continue in the quarters particularly in view of the Circular issued by the Divisional Office, Southern Railway, personnel Branch, Bangalore. In Annexure-C instructions are issued that in cases of compassionate grounds, appointment is made within 12 months from the date of death of the employee, the appointee is eligible for accommodation and as such the same accommodation should be regularised if the appointee is eligible for the same or higher grade of accommodation. ( 5 ) IF the argument is founded on the fact that the 2nd petitioner has since become an employee of the Railway and therefore he may continue, then the petitioners will have to demonstrate that the post of Head Constable is co-responding to the post Khalasi and both of them are entitled to the same type of class of accommodation. But that is not demonstrated. That is not asserted in the statement of facts in support of the prayer for relief. On the other hand, in the statement of objections, the Circular dated 25th July, 1986 issued by the same Head quarters of Southern Railway, Personnel branch, that a retired railway servant may continue to occupy the same for a period of 4 months on payment of normal rent. Similarly, in case of death, the family is permitted to retain the railway quarters for a period of 6 months on payment of normal rent. Therefore, Annexure-D is a later circular/notification and therefore this Court should give importance to the Circular/notification dated 25th July, 1986. ( 6 ) IN any event, Rule 120 (3) of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, provides for summary eviction of the person who stays in the railway quarters allotted to him. That Rule is attracted only when the person is a member of the Force and not otherwise. In any event, the validity of that summary eviction is not questioned in this Court by the petitioners. If they are unauthorised occupants, they must be evicted in accordance with law applicable for eviction of such persons. ( 7 ) WHEN this was pointed out, the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent fairly conceded that action is being initiated only in accordance with law applicable under the provisions of eviction of Un-authorised Persons from Public premises Act, 1971. If they are unauthorised occupants, they must be evicted in accordance with law applicable for eviction of such persons. ( 7 ) WHEN this was pointed out, the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent fairly conceded that action is being initiated only in accordance with law applicable under the provisions of eviction of Un-authorised Persons from Public premises Act, 1971. ( 8 ) IN that view of the matter, Annexure-H, which is sought to be quashed in these Certiorari proceedings, is no more than declaring the persons to be unauthorised occupants. ( 9 ) THEREFORE, they must expect the authorities to act in accordance with law and cannot make a grievance of a notice declaring them to be unauthorised occupants. All defences open to the petitioners are kept open to be urged before the competent authority under the provisions of the aforementioned Act and right of appeal also is provided under the Act to the district Judge having jurisdiction. Therefore, the petitioners arc well protected within the provisions of the Rule and as such the writ petition is not maintainable at this stage. It is rejected subject to the observations made above. --- *** --- .