ORDER R.K. Merathia, J 1. Heard. 2. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 6.10.2006 (Annexure 2), passed by respondent No. 5, in case No. A/E, 112/06, directing her to remove unauthorised construction over 2206 sq.ft. of the leased land. The parties agreed that Section 4A in the said order is a typographical mistake for Section 5A. 3. Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, on being asked, admitted that petitioner has made constructions over the leased premises. However, it was submitted that the same was not unauthorised, as per the lease agreement. It was further submitted that copy of the complaint/report, on the basis of which the said case was started, was not supplied to the petitioner; that the said order is non-speaking order; and that the Estate Officer (respondent No. 5) was not appointed in accordance with law and therefore he had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. 4. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, submitted that in the notice dated 7.9.2006 (Annexure 1) itself, the grounds for issuing the notice and the details of unauthorised construction was clearly mentioned. Admittedly, petitioner made constructions over the leased land without any permission. He further submitted that the order impugned has been passed in terms of Section 5A(2) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (the Act for short). He also submitted that if the lessees are allowed to make constructions on the lease hold premises in hap-hazard and unauthorized manner and without permission of the Town Planner, the whole purpose of having a planed township will be frustrated. 5. Petitioner was granted a lease of a quarter having super built up area of 1004 sq. ft. in the ground floor and open area (potato land for ground floor) 2466 sq. ft. by the respondents Company for 33 years commencing from 30.9.2001 (Annexure 3). Learned Counsel for the petitioner relying on Clauses 2(xviii) and 7 of the lease agreement, submitted that a lessee cannot encroach upon the common portion or services but construction can be made in the lease hold premises and therefore the construction is not unauthorized. This argument cannot be accepted as it is not a case of encroachment upon common portion or services. Clause 2 (xiii) clearly restrain the lessee from making any additions/structural alteration in the leased premises. 6. This argument cannot be accepted as it is not a case of encroachment upon common portion or services. Clause 2 (xiii) clearly restrain the lessee from making any additions/structural alteration in the leased premises. 6. Admittedly, petitioner has made constructions over the lease hold area. Petitioner has not been prejudiced if the copy of the report of such construction was not supplied along with the notice. The notice clearly mentions the grounds for issuing the same and the area of unauthorized construction. Petitioner's show-cause was not found satisfactory. It was found that petitioner has made unauthorised construction of 2206 sq. ft. Clause 2 (xvii) of the lease, inter alia provides that the lease shall be governed by the Act. Section 5(1) of the Act inter alia provides that no person shall erect or place or raise any building or any movable or immovable structure or fixture on any public premises except in accordance with the authority under which he was allowed to occupy such premises. Section 5A(2) inter alia provides that in case of contravention of Sub-section (1), the Estate Officer may serve a notice requiring such persons either to remove or to show-cause why he shall not remove the same within a given period; and on the omission or refusal of such person either to show-cause or to remove construction or where the cause shown is not, in the opinion of the Estate Officer sufficient, he may, by order remove or cause to be removed such construction from the public premises and recover the cost of such removal from the persons concerned as an arrear of land revenue. Admittedly, petitioner has made construction in the lease hold premises without permission. In these circumstances, she cannot be heard to say that the order impugned is not speaking order. Now I shall deal with the question raised on behalf of the petitioner regarding the validity of the appointment of the Estate Officer. With reference to Section 2(b) read with Section 3 of the Act, it is submitted that only the Central Government can, by notification appoint an Estate Officer but Shri K.K. Akhouri, AGM was re-designated as Chief Town Administrator (CTA) by the respondent Company and therefore his appointment was invalid. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, in reply, submitted that AGM is a rank and not a post and there was nothing wrong if Shri K.K. Akhouri was appointed as Chief Town Administrator. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, in reply, submitted that AGM is a rank and not a post and there was nothing wrong if Shri K.K. Akhouri was appointed as Chief Town Administrator. He referred to the notification being S.O. No. 108 dated 22.12.1980, issued by the Government of India, under which Town Administrator of respondent Company was appointed as Estate Officer by post, under Section 3 of the Act, and submitted that on the basis of the said notification, order dated 6.5.2005 was issued by the Company appointing Shri K.K. Akhouri, Chief Town Administrator, as the Estate Officer. I find force in the submissions of Mr. Rajiv Ranjan and reject the petitioner's contention that the Estate Officer was not validly appointed. The judgment 2002 (3) JCR 700 (Jhr) Shree Bajarang Hard Coke relied by the petitioner is of no help to her. In that case, it was held that the complicated question of right, title and interest and whether the industry vested in the Government Company, cannot be decided in the summary proceedings under the Act. In tills case, it is the admitted position that petitioner made constructions over the leased premises without permission. In the facts and circumstances, noticed above, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.