C. K. THAKKER, J. ( 1 ) RULE. Mr. S. V. Raju, learned Counsel for the respondents, appears and waives service of rule on behalf of respondents. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is taken up for final hearing today. ( 2 ) THIS petition is filed against an order passed by the Competent Authority on 24/02/1995, by which the petitioner was ordered to be evicted, holding him to be in unauthorised occupation of the disputed quarter. The said order was confirmed by the lower appellate Court on 12/04/1995. ( 3 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that he is serving with the National Airport authority as Fire Operator. He was appointed to the said post in November, 1982 and since then, he is working with the respondents. It is asserted by him that he is entitled to have allotment of quarter Type II. But as quarter Type I was vacant and since the petitioner was in need of quarter, he was allotted Type I quarter on 21/12/1992. The petitioner thereafter was allotted quarter No. B-4 of Type ii on 22/02/1995 and possession thereof was also given to him on the next day, i. e. , on 23/02/1995. Immediately on the next day, i. e. , on 24/02/1995, the said allotment order was cancelled without issuing notice calling for explanation or complying with the principles of natural justice. The petitioner came to know about the said fact. The petitioner, therefore, filed Civil Suit No. 171 of 1995 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ahmedabad (Rural) which is (1) 1969 (3) SCC 415 still pending. It is his case that thereafter, respondent No. 2 issued a notice on 6/03/1995 under Sec. 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be evicted from quarter No. B-4 of Type II. The petitioner submitted his reply on 13/03/1995. On 15th of March, 1995, the impugned order was passed by respondent No. 2-Competent Authority directing the petitioner to vacate the quarter. Against that petitioner approached the District Court, ahmedabad (Rural) and the learned 3rd Joint District Judge dismissed the appeal. Against that order, the petitioner has approached this Court. ( 4 ) VARIOUS contentions were raised by Mr. Dhotare, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Against that petitioner approached the District Court, ahmedabad (Rural) and the learned 3rd Joint District Judge dismissed the appeal. Against that order, the petitioner has approached this Court. ( 4 ) VARIOUS contentions were raised by Mr. Dhotare, learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is, however, not necessary for me to deal with all the contentions since, in my opinion, the petition can be disposed of on one ground. It was contended by the Counsel that notice issued to the petitioner in purported exercise of power under Sec. 4 of the Act is contrary to law and cannot be said to be legal and valid in the eye of law. Section 4 provides for issuance of notice against an order of eviction. It reads thus :-". . . . . . . 4. Issue of notice to show cause against order of eviction.- (1) If the Estate officer is of opinion that any persons are in unauthorised occupation of any public premises and 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. (2) The notice shall - (a) specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made; and (b) require all persons concerned, that is to say, all persons who are, or may be, in occupation of, or claim interest in, the public premises, - (i) to show cause, if any, against the proposed order on or before such date as is specified in the notice, being a date not earlier than seven days from the date of issue thereof, and (ii) to appear before the Estate Officer on the date specified in the notice alongwith the evidence which they intend to produce in support of the cause shown and also for personal hearing, if such hearing is desired. (3) The Estate Officer shall cause the notice to be served having it affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises, and in such other manner as may be prescribed, whereupon the notice shall be deemed to have been duly given to all persons concerned. (3) The Estate Officer shall cause the notice to be served having it affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises, and in such other manner as may be prescribed, whereupon the notice shall be deemed to have been duly given to all persons concerned. (4) Where the Estate Officer knows or has reasons to believe that any persons are in occupation of the public premises, then, without prejudice to the provisions of sub-sec. (3), he shall cause a copy of the notice to be served on every such person by post or by delivering or tendering it to that person or in such other manner as may be prescribed. . . . . . . " (emphasis supplied) ( 5 ) MY attention was also invited by the Counsel to Form "a" prescribed under Rule 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" ). The notice must be in that form. The said form is as under :-