A. LALA, J. ( 1 ) THESE writ petitions were made for the common purpose. Therefore, the Court was pleased to direct to hear out all the writ petitions analogously. Several applications were also made in connection with the main writ petition. However, by making these writ petitions, petitioners wanted cancellation and/or withdrawal of a notice under seal and signature of the Estate Officer under sub section (1) and Clause (b) (iii) of sub section (2) of section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. The notice in the nature of show cause is issued to give reply why the eviction should not be made to the respective petitioners. It is apparent that the respective petitioners were called upon in person or through a duly authorized representative capable to answer material questions connected with the matter along with the evidence which is intended to be produced in support of the cause shown at a personal hearing and a further notice was given that in case of failure the matter will be proceeded ex-parte. The grounds cited in the notice are as follows: 1. Reasonable and bonafide own use by the Bank; 2. Sub-letting, assigning whole or part of the occupied portion without written consent of the bank; 3. Non-payment of rent for the period of 6 months and more; 4. Construction and erection of fixtures, structures (temporary and permanent); 5. Damage to the occupied portion; 6. Creating nuisance/mischief in the occupied portion. ( 2 ) THE connected applications are being made for similar prayers. Hence, in hearing the main writ petition 1 do not find any justification to pass any order separately in connection with such applications. Therefore, result of the final disposal of the writ petition will be effective upon such connected applications. ( 3 ) SUB-SECTION (1) of section 4 of the Act says that if the Estate Officer is of opinion that the persons are in unauthorized occupation of any public premises and that they should be evicted, the Estate Officer will 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. The sub clause (b) (ii) of sub section (2) of such section says that they should appear before the Estate Officer on the dates specified in the notice along with the evidence which they intend to produce in support of the cause shown and also for personal hearing if such hearing is desired. That apart, sub section (2) (a) of such section says that the notice shall specify the grounds on which the order eviction is proposed to be made. ( 4 ) FROM the annexures to the writ petition it appears that both the parties have represented their respective causes upon submitting to the jurisdiction of the Estate Officer. The time was granted for filing written statement. The whole contention of the petitioners' counsel before the Estate Officer is to supply a copy of the application filed by the bank i. e. the owner of the premises in question. The authority held that the proceeding was initiated on the basis of the issuance of notice by the Estate Officer. Therefore, the present proceeding is required to be proceeded as per the provision of the Special Act as well as Rules framed thereunder. The petitioner is not entitled to have a copy of the bank's petition made before the Estate Officer unlike the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Estate Officer found the stand of the respondent bank justifiable in view of the sections under which the notice was given and granted time to the petitioner to submit their written reply and/or representation covering answer and causes of the material in questions referred therein along with the evidences. From the annexures in the writ petition I find that those are copies of challans of deposit of rents before the Rent Controller and receipts of payment of electricity charges in respect of the premises in question. Periods of challans and receipts are prior to issuance of notice by the Estate Officer. ( 5 ) ON 19th February, 1992 a Office Memorandum was issued by the Joint Secretary of Government of India, Ministry of Industry Department of Public Enterprises. From the Office Memorandum it appears that a guideline has been introduced for the purpose of administrative action under the Act. Such Circular was issued on the basis of a Supreme Court judgment upholding the provisions of the Act. From the Office Memorandum it appears that a guideline has been introduced for the purpose of administrative action under the Act. Such Circular was issued on the basis of a Supreme Court judgment upholding the provisions of the Act. Certain guidelines given in such Office Memorandum are as follows: (A)it should be primarily used to evict illegal occupants or unauthorized sublets or employees who have ceased from their respective services i. e. ineligible occupation of the premises; (B)the provision should not be resorted to with a commercial motive or to secure vacant possession or to accommodate their employees where the premises were in occupation of the original tenants to whom the premises were let. (C)a person in lawful occupation should not be treated or declared to be an unauthorized person merely on the service of notice of termination of tenancy; ( 6 ) MR. S. Talukdar, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners basically took two points for due consideration. Firstly, what is the value of the circular when the statute exists? Secondly, what are the particular ground/s of issuance of notice? ( 7 ) IN support of his first contention he relied upon paragraphs 6-8 of the judgment reported in 1994 (1) SCC 269 (Union of India and Anr. v. Amrik Singh and Ors.) to establish administrative instructions should, in no manner, be inconsistent with the Rules. ( 8 ) BY citing a judgment reported in 2000 (5) SCC 742 (Union of India and Anr. v. Charanjit S. Gill and Ors.) he contended that notes and administrative instructions issued in the absence of statutory authority held that neither have the force of law nor can substitute any provisions of the Act or Rules or regulations framed thereunder. Hence, they cannot take away any rights vested in the persons governed by the act. The subordinate legislation has power to issue administrative instructions to fill up the gaps in supplementing the Rules if the rules are silent on the subject provided that those are not inconsistent with the existing Rules. ( 9 ) IN 1992 (2) CLT 244 (Damodar Valley Corporation and Ors. v. Damodar Valley Corporation Displaced Employees Union) a Division Bench of this Court held that when the intention of an Administrative Officer is to supplant the intention of the legislature under the Rule of Law the same can supplement but not supplant a statutory provision. ( 9 ) IN 1992 (2) CLT 244 (Damodar Valley Corporation and Ors. v. Damodar Valley Corporation Displaced Employees Union) a Division Bench of this Court held that when the intention of an Administrative Officer is to supplant the intention of the legislature under the Rule of Law the same can supplement but not supplant a statutory provision. ( 10 ) ACCORDING to me there cannot be any dispute or disregard with the views taken by the Supreme Court and Division Bench of this Court principally. But whether the circular which has been issued here is supplant or supplement to any statute or made contrary to the intention of the legislature is to be understood in the proper prospective of the facts and circumstance of the case. In the instant case, the circular was issued in the 1992 giving certain guidelines to consider the case by the Estate Officer when the very existence of the Act was made intra vires by the Supreme Court with an observation that every activity of the public authority should be guided by public interest, and they should deal with their tenants distinctly from private landlords. Therefore, the beneficial effort of the administrative instructions within the four corners of the Act held as intra vires by the Supreme Court with the above observation cannot be held to be contrary to import of the Act far less to say that the same is supplant of the Act. This is purely an administrative instruction as per the viewpoint of the Supreme Court so that the Estate Officer should act in proper quasi judicial manner. Therefore, it is for the benefit of the affected parties which cannot be held to be bad in law in any manner whatsoever. Moreover, the circular was issued in the year, 1992 when no challenge was thrown in respect of the above instruction and now the challenge is thrown by way of writ petition when the notice was issued in August, 2002 asking to give reply to the show cause. The whole relief arose from such notice but not for any declaration as regards the circular issued in the year, 1992. Therefore, I do not find any justifiable stand on the part of the petitioners as regards such circular. The whole relief arose from such notice but not for any declaration as regards the circular issued in the year, 1992. Therefore, I do not find any justifiable stand on the part of the petitioners as regards such circular. ( 11 ) SO far as the next point is concerned, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners firstly relied upon AIR 1967 SC 295 (Barium Chemicals Ltd. and Anr. v. Company Law Board and Ors.) to establish that if there is no ground at all for passing any order or issuance of notice of if the grounds are such that no one can reasonably arrive at a conclusion the same can be challenged before the Court of Law. He further relied upon 2002 (3) CLT 535 (Sugandha Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. A. K. Saha and Anr. with other matters) in which this Court was pleased to hold that there is a difference between a reason to believe and a reason to suspect and when the opinion of reason to believe is established, an action in accordance with law can be taken. According to him, such reason to believe will be reflected from the notice or from the copy of the petition filed by the interested person/s to understand the position. Petitioners are entitled to know what is the basis for the authority to come to conclusion that there should be issuance of notice of show cause. The grounds which are shown hereunder are general grounds made for each and every party. Therefore, unless and until the grounds are specified defence cannot be taken by an aggrieved party. In such way justice has been denied by the respondent authority. In similarly placed situation when an application was moved before this Court being T. No. 16 of 2003 (G. C. Sen and Co. and Anr. v. United Commercial Bank and Ors.) the Court was pleased to pass an order on 20th January, 2003 that as per section 8 of the Act, Estate Officer will function as a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; (b) requiring the discovery and production of documents; (c) any other matter which may be prescribed. ( 12 ) LEARNED counsel of the respondents contended that if such procedure is to be followed then there is no scope of discovery or inspection before filing the written statement. The petitioner contended that without the particulars no written statement can be filed. Notice cannot be construed as plaint. Therefore, they are entitled to get particulars before filing the written statement. ( 13 ) UPON hearing both the parties this Court held that the writ petition can be disposed of by treating the reply to the notice as written statement and with a direction upon the parties to complete the discovery and inspection of documents on the basis of the notice within the prescribed period and thereafter the petitioners will be able to file an additional statement on the materials so inspected. ( 14 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondent cited a judgment reported in 1990 (4) SCC 406 (Ashoka Marketing Ltd. andanr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. with other matters) in its paragraph 69 to establish that Supreme Court was unable to cut down the scope and provision of the Act on the basis of the apprehension, if any, in respect of its applicability. In paragraph 71 therein the Supreme Court observed that the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court directly against the order passed by the Estate Officer without filing an appeal against the order before the Appellate Authority. The High Court held that the question of mala fides is a disputed question of fact and the same cannot be gone into under Article 226 of the Constitution. Supreme Court held that the appellant cannot be permitted to get adjudication of the matters which could be agitated before the Appellate Authority. In 1996 (1) CHN 407 (Life Insurance Corporation of India and Anr. v. M/s. Harmony House and Ors. with another matter) it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that taking the similar view in respect of the dispute before the Estate Officer under the said Act following the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court. In 1996 (1) CHN 407 (Life Insurance Corporation of India and Anr. v. M/s. Harmony House and Ors. with another matter) it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that taking the similar view in respect of the dispute before the Estate Officer under the said Act following the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court. ( 15 ) THE respondent bank separately appeared and cited a judgment of the Delhi High Court reported in AIR 1983 Delhi 347 (M/s. Safari Airways v. The Estate Officer and Ors.) to establish that it is open for the affected party to prefer an appeal to the question of validity of confirmation of opinion by the Estate Officer regarding unauthorized occupation in the notice which has been issued by him under section 4 (1) of the Act. Therefore, the writ petition challenging the validity of the confirmation of opinion as unauthorized occupation by the Estate Officer in the notice under section 4 (1) would be misconceived and not maintainable at the stage of service of the notice. ( 16 ) ACCORDING to me, no fruitful purpose in merit will be subserved and the delay will be caused if the parties are allowed to contest more and more on this issue. It is an admitted position that the question is with regard to the decision making process but not the decision. There is no doubt that a reply to the show cause has already been given. Having been so, the Estate Officer is entitled to proceed with the same. The dispute is whether the Estate Officer is serving the similar notice at random to all the occupants for the purpose of causing individual justice or not. In other words, whether show cause notice will be issued upon the different occupants on the individual cause or with the common cause at random and whosoever is attracted by anyone of those grounds will give reply to the same. According to me, this is not proper quasi judicial process. Therefore, which one would be the appropriate ground for holding an opinion for issuance of service upon individual occupant will be reflected from such notice. In such circumstances, guidelines of the matter of T No. 16 of 2003 (G. C. Sen and Co. and Anr. v. United Commercial Bank and Ors.) will be followed by the parties. Therefore, which one would be the appropriate ground for holding an opinion for issuance of service upon individual occupant will be reflected from such notice. In such circumstances, guidelines of the matter of T No. 16 of 2003 (G. C. Sen and Co. and Anr. v. United Commercial Bank and Ors.) will be followed by the parties. On the basis of the guideline reply of such type of notice will be treated as written statement. The parties will be entitled to complete the course of discovery and inspection amongst themselves within a prescribed time given hereunder. After having materials, if the aggrieved party, is interested to file any further reply he/she will be entitled to do so within a further period and such reply will be treated as additional written statement. If such procedure is adopted the same will be the true reflection of application of principle of Code of Civil Procedure as per section 8 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. ( 17 ) THUS, I dispose of the writ petitions along with the connected applications in holding the similar view that a reply already given by the petitioner will be treated as written statement. The discovery and inspection of any of the documents on the basis of the notice will be made within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of the order by the respondent positively and thereafter the petitioners will be entitled to file a further reply, if any, on such materials within a period of further two weeks and such reply will be construed as additional written statement. To accommodate the parties about discovery and inspection and for filing additional written statement, if necessary, the Estate Officer is entitled to extend the period of hearing. ( 18 ) HOWEVER, this order, under no stretch of imagination, will be construed as interference with the adjudication of the Estate Officer who will be entitled to adjudicate the same in merit in accordance with law and if anybody is aggrieved by his order, he will be entitled to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority also in accordance with law. Thus the writ petitions and connected applications are disposed of. However, no order is passed as to costs. Thus the writ petitions and connected applications are disposed of. However, no order is passed as to costs. Xerox certified copies of this judgment will be supplied to the parties within seven days from the date of putting requisites for drawing up and completion of the order and certified copy of this judgment. Petition disposed of