Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent does not have the jurisdiction to pass the impugned order, dated 19.8.2011, holding that the petitioner is an unauthorised occupant of the premises in question. The respondent has passed the impugned order, dated 19.8.2011, under Sub Section 1 of Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, stating that the petitioner is an unauthorized occupant and therefore, he has to vacate the premises under his unauthorized occupation, within a period of 15 days from the date of publication of the said order. It had also been stated that in the event of refusal or failure on the part of the petitioner to comply with the said order, he is liable to be evicted from the premises, by use of force. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent had submitted that the petitioner is not in a position to show that he had been authorised to occupy the premises in question. Further, efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner to challenge the order of the respondent, by way of filing an appeal, under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. 4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties concerned, without going into the merits of the matter, the petitioner is permitted to file an appeal before the appropriate appellate authority, as per Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such appeal being filed, the appellate authority concerned shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible. It is made clear that it would be open to the petitioner to raise all the grounds available to him in the said appeal, including the ground relating to the jurisdiction of the respondent to pass the impugned order. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 are closed.