JUDGMENT 1. - The moot question which has arisen for consideration of this Court in the above mentioned writ petitions is as to whether the State of Rajasthan, the petitioner herein, has the right to challenge the findings arrived at by the Estate Officer by way representing an appeal before the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur under section 9 of the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), whereby the learned Estate Officer P.W.D. (B & R), Circle 1, Jaipur, had dropped the eviction proceedings against non-petitioner No. 3, private occupant of the disputed premises and whose possession over the disputed premises was challenged by the State Government as unauthorised and hence liable for eviction under the Act by instituting eviction proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the said Act and the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur in appeal preferred by the State against the order of the Estate Officer, has declined to entertain the appeal preferred by the appellant on the grounds that the same is not maintainable against the impugned order of the Estate Officer being not appealable under section 9 of the Act. 2. Since the question of law which has arisen for consideration of this Court in the above mentioned writ petitions is identical, for the. sake of convenience I deem it appropriate to decide the same by this common order and hence they are being decided and disposed of by this single order and for the sake of convenience I further deem it appropriate to refer to the facts given in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1253/85 treating the same as main writ petition. 3. The brief facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition as well as the connected writ petitions, are that the shops in dispute bearing Nos. P-121 to 126 situated in Chowkri Ramji, Jaipur were leased out to non-petitioner No. 3 at Rs. 1.30 P. per month. 3. The brief facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition as well as the connected writ petitions, are that the shops in dispute bearing Nos. P-121 to 126 situated in Chowkri Ramji, Jaipur were leased out to non-petitioner No. 3 at Rs. 1.30 P. per month. The tenancy of non-petitioner No. 3 was terminated by the lessor vide notice dated 18.7.1975 but inspite of receipt of the said notice duly terminating the tenancy of non-petitioner No. 3, he declined to vacate the aforesaid premises being the public premises and hence amenable to the jurisdiction of the Estate Officer for the purpose of institution of eviction proceedings by the State Government against non-petitioner No. 3 being the unauthorised occupant of the said premises. 4. It has further been contended by the petitioner that on 26.10.1979 the petitioner initiated proceeding for eviction of non-petitioner No. 3 under the Act before the Estate Officer, P.W.D. (B & R) Circle 1, Jaipur. The Estate Officer took cognizance of the matter by issuing notice to non-petitioner No. 3 in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, the proceedings were contested by non-petitioner No. 3 by filing his reply and the Estate Officer after hearing both the parties, rejected the petitioners' prayer by declining to pass an order of eviction against non-petitioner No. 3. 5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Estate Officer (respondent No. 2) the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur u /s. 9 of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Estate Officer (respondent No. 2) the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur u /s. 9 of the Act. At the time of final hearing of the appeal, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the said appeal on behalf of the State on the ground that the right of presenting an appeal was restricted under the provisions of the Act only to a private party and not to the State Government inasmuch as it was only in the event of order of eviction being passed against a private party being declared as unauthorised occupant of the disputed premises, only had the right to challenge the findings of the Estate Officer by way of an appeal before the learned District Judge in accordance with Section 9 of the Act but in the event of the Estate Officer declining the request of the State to declare an occupant as unauthorised occupant of the public premises, even if the interest of the State was vitally affected by the order of the Estate Officer, its order was not appealable before the District Judge on behalf of State. 6. In this context I deem it appropriate to refer to the salutary provisions of Sections 4, 5, 7 & 9 of the Act. 6. In this context I deem it appropriate to refer to the salutary provisions of Sections 4, 5, 7 & 9 of the Act. Under Section 4 of the Act, if the Estate Officer is of the opinion that any person or persons is/are in unauthorised occupation of any public premises and he/ they should be evicted, the Estate Officer shall issue a notice in writing calling upon the person/persons concerned to show cause as to why an order of eviction should not be passed and thereafter on receiving the reply shall proceed in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 of the Act by giving affected party an opportunity of tendering evidence which it may produce in support of the same and after giving the said party a reasonable opportunity of being heard, if the Estate Officer is satisfied that the public premises are in unauthorised occupation, the officer may, on a date fixed for the purpose, make an order of eviction, for reasons to be recorded therein, directing that the public premises shall be evicted by all persons who may be in occupation thereof or any part thereof and cause a copy of the order to be affixed on the outer door or some conspicuous part of the public premises in the event of any person declining or failing to comply with the order )f eviction within 30 days of the date of its publication under sub-rule (1) the Estate Officer or any other duly authorised by the Estate Officer in this behalf may evict that person from and take possession of the public premises, and may for that purpose, use such force as may be necessary. 7. Section 9 of the Act provides remedy of an appeal against every order of the Estate Officer in respect of public premises passed under section 5 or Section 7 of the Act. 7. Section 9 of the Act provides remedy of an appeal against every order of the Estate Officer in respect of public premises passed under section 5 or Section 7 of the Act. Section 9 of the Act specifically provides that an appeal shall lie from every order of the Estate Officer made in respect of any public premises under section 5 or Section 7 of the Act but an appellate Officer who shall be the District Judge of the District in which the public premises are situated or such other Judicial Officer in that District of not less than 10 years' standing, as the District Judge may designate in this behalf such appeal shall be preferred in case of an appeal from an order under section 5 of the Act, within 15 days from the date of publication under sub-sec. (1) of that Section and in case of an appeal from an order under section 7, within 15 days from the date on which the order is communicated to the appellant provided that the appellate Officer may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of 15 days, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing an appeal in time. It has further been provided under the said provisions that every appellate shall be disposed of by the appellate authority as expeditiously as possible. 8. It is thus, apparent from the plain reading of the aforesaid provisions that the right of appeal is a statutory right recognised under the Act and every decision of the Estate Officer whether positive or negative is appealable and the legislature in its wisdom has not restricted the right of presenting an appeal only to a private party, i.e., unauthorised occupant of the public premises under the Act but also has extended the right to the State of presenting an appeal before the appellate authority, i.e., the District Judge in the event of an adverse order passed by the Estate Officer under section 5 or 7 of the Act. In both the circumstances, an appeal whether by an occupant of public premises or by the State is maintainable before the learned District judge within whose jurisdiction the said public premises are situated and the Act does not discriminate between any party in this regard. In both the circumstances, an appeal whether by an occupant of public premises or by the State is maintainable before the learned District judge within whose jurisdiction the said public premises are situated and the Act does not discriminate between any party in this regard. In other words the right of the State to present an appeal against the order of the Estate Officer to the learned District judge has been as much recognised by the legislature as a right of a private party or an unauthorised occupant of the public premises against whom the eviction proceedings have been initiated by the Estate Officer in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have examined their rival claims and contentions and also ascertained the legal position on the subject. Prima facie I am of the opinion that the right of an appeal under the Act cannot be restricted to an occupant of the public premises being owned by the State Government and if the State Government is deprived of the opportunity of presenting an appeal against the decision of the Estate Officer to the learned District Judge under section 9 of the Act, it would result in manifest injustice to the State, since the right to present an appeal cannot be scuttled or restricted by the appellate authority by its discretion by giving right of presenting an appeal to an occupant of the public premises while declining the same to the State. Such a classification, in my opinion, would be highly arbitrary, irrational and contrary to the provisions of Section 9 of the Act, since every order passed by the Estate Officer under section 5 or 7 of the Act is appealable both, by the private occupant as well as by the State. Both the parties have the corresponding right of presenting an appeal and the same cannot be denied to one party at the cost of the other and in my considered opinion the learned District Judge has committed gross illegality and a manifest error of law as well as jurisdiction by not treating the appeal presented by the State as maintainable under section 9 of the Act. I am further of the view that if the appeal presented by the State against the decision of the Estate Officer was held maintainable by the appellate authority viz. I am further of the view that if the appeal presented by the State against the decision of the Estate Officer was held maintainable by the appellate authority viz. learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, then no prejudice would have resulted to the occupant of the public premises, i.e., non-petitioner No. 3 but on the contrary grave prejudice has ensued to the State Government, since its right of contesting the eviction proceedings against unauthorised occupant of the public premises under the Act has been adversely affected by the impugned decision of the learned District Judge by declining the right of the State Government to present an appeal against the decision of the Estate Officer on the grounds of its maintainability alone, instead entertaining and deciding the same on merits. 10. I am further of the view that the impugned order of the learned District Judge by which the said appellate authority has declined the right of the State Government of presenting an appeal against the decision of the Estate Officer as being not.maintainable under section 9 of the Act, is contrary to the provisions of the Act and deserves to be quashed and set aside. Learned District Judge in his impugned order dated 14.12.1984 has drawn inference on the subject as discussed above contrary to the provisions of the Act, inasmuch as the right to file an appeal cannot be restricted to a private party alone and the State if aggrieved by the impugned order of the Estate Officer under the Act equally has a right to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority if the decision of the authority constituted under the Act is erroneous or contrary to law. It has resulted in gross violation of natural justice as well as the statutory provisions of the Act by the appellate authority in the manner in which the right of the State Governments to prefer an appeal against the decision of Prescribed Authority has been scuttled by the appellate authority. 11. In view of the above discussions I am of the view that the petitioner deserves to succeed. Consequently the writ petitions are allowed. 11. In view of the above discussions I am of the view that the petitioner deserves to succeed. Consequently the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned order dated 26.5.1981 passed by Estate Officer, Jaipur in Case No. 1597/79 (Annexure 1) as well as the order dated 14.12.1984 passed by the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur rejecting the appeal filed by the State u /s. 9 of the Act arising out of order dated 26.5.1981 passed by the Estate Officer in case No. 1497/79 are quashed and set aside. As a result, the appeal of the appellant preferred before the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur against the impugned order of the Estate Officer is held as maintainable and the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur is directed to adjudicate and decide the said appeal afresh by giving both the parties an adequate opportunity of being heard and ex- peditiously deal with and decide the said appeal on merits in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs. The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Jaipur City on 10.3.1997. The summoned record be sent back immediately.Petitions allowed. *******