Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order, dated 29.10.2010, had been passed by the second respondent, without issuing any notice to the petitioner. 3. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the impugned order, dated 29.10.2010, passed by the second respondent, would be withdrawn and a fresh notice would be issued to the petitioner before evicting him from the premises in question and thereafter, further action would be initiated against the petitioner, as per the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act, 1971. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that, as and when such a notice is issued to the petitioner, he would raise all the issues before the appropriate authority, in accordance with the procedures established by law. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, since, no further orders are necessary, the writ petition stands closed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.