H. N. TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari or writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari and for quashing the notice in Form 'a' purporting to have been issued under S. 4 (1) of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act dated 4-1-1993, a copy of which has been annexed to this writ petition and for such other reliefs as this court may deem fit. ( 2 ) THE petitioner's case is that the notice that has been issued to him under S. 4 (1) of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, for short, 'act' does not comply with the requirements of S. 4 (2) of the Act and it does not specifically mention the grounds and the particulars of the grounds on the basis of which the petitioner has been alleged to be in unauthorised occupation of the land. In relation to what is mentioned in the notice, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the place of grounds it has been mentioned as Tahsildar report dated 3-10-1992 and 2-1-1993 and Dy. Commissioner's order dated 23-11-1992. There is also mention as Dy. Commissioner's endorsement No. LND. ID. SR. 210/92-93. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is not sufficient to indicate the grounds, really the grounds here mean that at least the gist/ substance of that report should have been mentioned in the notice and the gist/ substance, of the order of the Dy. Commissioner referred to in Annexure-C should have been provided if thet copies of those documents had not been provided to the petitioner by them. That in view of the provisions of S. 4 (1) of the Act it has been necessary to specifically state the ground with particulars and for reference the document could be referred as report of the Tahsildar or the like. Therefore, the notice under S. 4 (1) of the Act is illegal and should be quashed. On behalf of the opposite parties, Sri N. Devadas, learned High Court Government Pleader has put in appearance. He has submitted that the petitioner has been called by notice in writing to show cause why an order of eviction should not be passed against him. He has been provided opportunity to put his case before the authorities. On behalf of the opposite parties, Sri N. Devadas, learned High Court Government Pleader has put in appearance. He has submitted that the petitioner has been called by notice in writing to show cause why an order of eviction should not be passed against him. He has been provided opportunity to put his case before the authorities. According to him if there were any defects and the notice was not clear, the petitioner should have asked the authorities to supply the necessary particularly of the grounds, but he has not done so. Learned Govt. Pleader also submitted that notice served on the petitioner is not rendered illegal null and void, instead, for lack or want of particulars it may be irregular. That if petitioner would have demanded for particulars being supplied and if the authorities even then would not have supplied the particulars of the grounds or statement of facts regarding those grounds then no doubt, petitioner could have said that for the failure of the State authorities, to perform its duty, which is inherent in view of the provisions of S. 4 (1) which required the authorities to provide an opportunity to the person concerned to show cause why the proceedings should not be taken and then, the authorities could be said to have proceeded illegally. In the circumstances, it is submitted that it is not just and proper to quash the notice, but the authorities may be directed to supply the particulars needed by the ipetitioner or statement of facts regarding those grounds and in case, authorities do not comply or do not supply the particulars, then it is open to the court to direct the Asstt. Commissioner and the Estate Officer to have droped the proceedings. ( 3 ) I have examined the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. I have also gone through the notice. Section 4 (l) of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 runs as under: "if the estate officer is of opinion that any persons are in unauthorised occupation of any public premisesand that they should be evicted, the estate officer shall issue in the manner hereinafter provided a notice in writing calling upon all persons concerned to show cause why an order of eviction should not be made. " sub-section (1) of S. 4 of the Act provides that if the Estate Officer is of the opinion that any person is in unauthorised occupation of the public premises and that he should be evicted, then the Estate Officer shall issue a notice in writing in the manner hereinafter provided, to persons concerned and shall call upon them to show cause why the order of eviction need not be made against them. Sub-section (2) of S. 4 provides what has to be contained in the notice. As per clause (a) of sub-sec. (2) the grounds should be specified on the basis of which the eviction order is proposed to be made and it further provides that notice shall require all those persons concerned, who in the opinion of the estate officer and the unauthorised occupants to show cause, against the proposed order by or before the date fixed in the notice and it provided that at least 7 days time definitely be provided in between the date of service of notice and the date fixed in the case. The expression 'to specify the grounds' is very material so also the facts and circumstances on the basis of which a person, in the opinion of the Estate Officer is an unauthorised occupant, those facts and circumstances should be specifically stated in the notice and it must contain a specific statement that on the basis of such and such acts, order or report or substance of order or report only of the concerned authorities, it may be indicated that the authority provisionally or tentatively thinks or opines that a person is in unauthorised occupation and then provisionally shall issue such a notice to show cause as to why he should not be evicted. But if the notice does not specify facts as in the present case, or even the substance of the Tahsildar's report nor the substance of the order of the Dy. But if the notice does not specify facts as in the present case, or even the substance of the Tahsildar's report nor the substance of the order of the Dy. Commissioner or where the grounds, that is, particulars of facts on the basis of which the opinion may have been formed are not furnished to the person concerned, definitely, it can be said that no show cause notice in the eye of law has been issued or it is a substantially defective notice which has been issued and in other case, where particulars are not specified, allegations are not clear, the person alleged to be in unauthorised occupation cannot be expected to give a due and proper reply and if it cannot give a due and proper reply, then it can well be said particularly in a case, where the eviction order is passed that, that order has been passed without complying with the requirements of, natural justice and without affording opportunity to show cause. Thus, having perused the notice Annexure-C, I hold that the notice lacks in material particulars. ( 4 ) SUCH notice as above which does not conform with the requirements of law under S. 4 (2), cannot form the basis of proceedings for eviction of a person as such. It is well settled principle of law that if law confers certain powers and it prescribes the specific mode for exercising of that power, then the necessary implication that follows is that ordinarily the other modes are closed. That applying the above principle, I find that when the law authorises initiation of eviction proceedings against a person, who is in the opinion of the Estate Officer, an unauthorised occupant of a public premises and prescribes the specific mode to the effect that a notice shall be given to him to show cause against the proposed action and in that notice, the grounds shall be specifically mentioned on the basis of which eviction is proposed to be made. The show cause notice is required to be given after duly complying with the requirements thereof as prescribed. ( 5 ) AS mentioned above, that is, specifying the particulars of facts and circumstances providing a basis or the ground for taking proceedings. The show cause notice is required to be given after duly complying with the requirements thereof as prescribed. ( 5 ) AS mentioned above, that is, specifying the particulars of facts and circumstances providing a basis or the ground for taking proceedings. These grounds with specification of particulars and facts relevant has got to be done in notice and a notice thus does not specify the grounds in the sense that it does not provide the particulars therefore, then such a notice cannot form the basis for initiating proceeding for eviction. Such a notice has to be quashed. When I take a view that the notice does not conform with the requirement of law and does not state the particulars to enable the person concerned to answer the cause against him, then that notice cannot provide the foundation of proceeding to be followed, I find support from the view expressed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Nasir Ahmed v. Assistant Custodian General, reported in AIR 1980 SC 1157 , in that case, their Lordships in dealing with the notice which is required under Rules 6 and 7 to be issued in the prescribed form and in respect of which it is provided that the notice shall specify the grounds and if notice fails to specify-the grounds and particulars provided the said notice cannot provide for a foundation for proceedings under Section 7. Having thus considered, I hold as the notice does not comply with the requirements of S. 4 (1) of the Act as it does not specify the grounds, it is bad and as such, petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed. That as such, the writ petition is allowed. The notice Annexure C dated 4-1-1993 is hereby declared to be null, illegal and inoperative and as such, the opposite parties are directed not to proceed further on the basis of notice dated 4-1-1993, copy of which annexed as Annexure-C to the writ petition. I may make it clear that, it will remain open to the opposite party to initiate fresh proceedings if the petitioner is, in his opinion, an authorised occupant of the public premises after giving due notice under Section 4 (1) of the Act in accordance with the law. Thus the writ petition is allowed. I may make it clear that, it will remain open to the opposite party to initiate fresh proceedings if the petitioner is, in his opinion, an authorised occupant of the public premises after giving due notice under Section 4 (1) of the Act in accordance with the law. Thus the writ petition is allowed. The notice dated 4-1-1993 is held to be illegal and void and inoperative; the opposite ties are directed not to initiate or take proceedings for eviction against the petitioner under Section 4 (1) of the Act okthe basis of notice dated 4-1-1993, i. e. , they are prohibited. from proceeding further on the basis above mentioned notice dated 4-1-1993. ( 6 ) IT is clarified again that it is open to them to proceed in accordance with law as mentioned above. The cost of the petition shall be borne out by the petitioner petition allowed. --- *** --- .