Judgment :- Arun Mishra, C.J. Heard Shri Saptangshu Basu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant. None appears on behalf of the respondents. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal of the writ petition filed by the petitioner questioning the order of the Estate Officer dated 2nd February, 2002 made under Section 5 (1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1971”. The order was questioned on the ground that the Estate Officer did not give any reason in support of his order. There was no scope for the petitioner to prefer necessary appeal in terms of Section 9 of the Act of 1971. The order has been questioned as being patently illegal. The respondents entered appearance before the Single Bench. It was the stand of the respondent that the ground was disclosed in the notice as well as reasons were given by the Estate Officer in support of his order. Licence for temporary occupation of the land was given to the petitioner on April 1, 1982. The same expired in the year 1983 and that the licence had never been renewed. It was also the stand of the respondent that the petitioner never paid any consideration of enjoying the property. It was submitted by the petitioner that he had complied with the direction given by this Court in the previous litigation. The Single Bench by the impugned order has dismissed the writ application. Hence, the intra court appeal has been preferred. It was submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that the order passed by the Estate Officer under the Act of 1971 is patently illegal and is violative of the order of injunction granted in the previous civil suit of 1987 which was modified by the Appellate Court and order of payment of Rs. 6,000/-per month was passed. It was also submitted that in the notice it was mentioned that the required aspect has not been dealt with in the final order passed under Section 5 of the Act of 1971. The appeal, in the circumstances, could not be said to be appropriate remedy. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Estate Officer ought to have been quashed. First we consider the submission of the learned Senior Counsel with respect to the order of injunction passed in the previous civil suit of 1987. The appeal, in the circumstances, could not be said to be appropriate remedy. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Estate Officer ought to have been quashed. First we consider the submission of the learned Senior Counsel with respect to the order of injunction passed in the previous civil suit of 1987. The Single Bench passed interim order dated 8th May, 1987 in terms of the prayer ‘C’ of the plaint and it was ordered that the interim order will continue till the disposal of the application. Liberty was given to the respondents to make application for vacating the interim order. In the appeal, a Division Bench of this Court passed an order on 14th December, 1987 directing payment of Rs.6,000/- per month. Then we consider the prayer made in para ‘C’ of the suit of 1987. Prayer ‘C’ in the suit of 1987 is to the following effect: “C) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from preventing and/or in manner disturbing the plaintiff from carrying on its business as a warehouse owner from the aforesaid warehouse at New Jalpaiguri and/or from taking any action and/or step against the plaintiff pursuant to the said purported notice dated 23rd July, 1986 and 9th December, 1986.” It is apparent that there was limited prayer made for injunction and from taking any action or steps against the plaintiff pursuant to the purported notice dated 23rd July, 1986 and 9th December, 1986. It is apparent from the aforesaid notices that interim relief has not been granted with respect to the subsequent cause of action and the notice issued in 2001. The injunction can not enure to the benefit with respect to the proceeding in question. Initially, the relevant documents and the papers of the said suit of 1987 were missing. This Court has directed again and again to trace out the file. All the order sheets are missing from the file. Only plaint and one order sheet of suit is available. That too with respect to the grant of interim order on May 8, 1987 and order of the Division Bench which was communicated to the Single Bench dated December 14, 1987. The other order sheets are totally missing. The learned Senior Counsel was unable to state before us whether suit itself has been finally decided or not. We have verified from register suit has been decided. There are no order sheets after 1987. The other order sheets are totally missing. The learned Senior Counsel was unable to state before us whether suit itself has been finally decided or not. We have verified from register suit has been decided. There are no order sheets after 1987. Even otherwise, considering the prayer ‘C’ made in the suit, the injunction cannot have any effect on fresh proceedings for ejectment. Coming to the submissions raised by the learned Counsel with respect to not availing the remedy of the appeal. The remedy of the appeal ought to have been resorted to. There was absolutely nothing to bye pass the remedy. As such, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the licence was granted for a period of one year from 1982-83. It was a temporary licence. Thereafter it is not the case of the petitioner that licence had been renewed at any point of time. Once the petitioner has no right whatsoever to continue with possession as such the proceeding initiated by the Railway by issuing a notice under Section 4 (1) of the Act of 1971 was proper. The order passed under Section 5 (1) for ejectment is also found to be quite reasonable and in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be termed to be illegal in any manner whatsoever. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the railway authorities had sent notice to the appellant stating therein that the area which was unauthorisedly occupied by the appellant was required by the Railways. In our opinion this fact was mentioned in the notice dated 7.9.2001 and the reference to the show cause notice formed part of the order of ejectment passed under Section 5 (1) of the Act of 1971. Thus there was illegality in the order. In reply to the show cause filed by the petitioner, it was mentioned that the authorities should reconsider the matter and renew period of the lease or licence. Significantly, it was not mentioned in the reply by the petitioner that there was any right to occupy the premises. From a reading of the order of ejectment it appears that mind has been applied by the authority. Order cannot be said to be laconic in the facts and circumstances of the case. Significantly, it was not mentioned in the reply by the petitioner that there was any right to occupy the premises. From a reading of the order of ejectment it appears that mind has been applied by the authority. Order cannot be said to be laconic in the facts and circumstances of the case. Rule of reason depends on the facts of the case and no straitjacket formula can be applied as to principles of natural justice. The learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sant Lal Gupta & Ors. Vs. Modern Co-operative Group Housing Society Limited & Ors, (2010) 13 SCC 336 in which the absence of reasons renders an order indefensible/unsustainable. There is no dispute with the aforesaid proposition but rule of reason has to be seen in the facts and circumstances of each case. Petitioner very well knew his case and was very much aware of his ejectment. He was clearly unauthorised occupant. As such, the decision of Sant Lal has no application in the instant case. The learned Senior Counsel has also relied upon in the case of Oryx Fisheries Private Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2010) 13 SCC 427 . It has been observed that the notice must state charges only and not definite conclusion of alleged guilt, notice was issued in a quasi-judicial proceeding under statutory regulation which assured reasonable opportunity of defence. The decision has no application to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. From the reasons mentioned in the show cause, it is apparent that the petitioner is an unauthorised occupant. Petitioner did not come up with any case that it was an authorised occupant in any manner or was holding the licence on the date the notice was issued. Mr. Basu, learned Senior Counsel has vehemently urged and relied upon the case of Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana Vs. Inderjit Singh & Anr., (2008) 13 SCC 506 in which the Apex Court has laid down that Municipal Corporation cannot act arbitrarily by demolishing the structure despite the pendency of the suit. Though the injunction was granted for a limited period for, it is expected of a statutory corporation to act thereupon by informing the Court thereabout. Furthermore, the notice was vague. It did not contain any description of the property. Though the injunction was granted for a limited period for, it is expected of a statutory corporation to act thereupon by informing the Court thereabout. Furthermore, the notice was vague. It did not contain any description of the property. How much area of the property was the subject matter of unauthorized construction had not been disclosed. It was not in dispute that a plan for construction of the building was sanctioned. The aforesaid case has no application whatsoever in the instant case. In instant case the injunction was with respect to the notice of 1986. Suit is not pending as apparent from register. The learned Counsel was unable to state whether the suit was pending or not. Order sheets are also missing from the file. Injunction was confined to Notice of 1986 and in plaint and was of no avail to interdict proceeding impugned in writ petition. Considering the facts and circumstances of the instant case that the temporary lease had been granted in the year 1982-83 and there was no further renewal, we find the order of ejectment to be appropriate. No case for interference is made out. It is shocking and surprising that the petitioner is enjoying the premises unauthorisedly so long. We find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. We find no merits in the appeal. The Railway shall recover the possession forthwith and realise the amount due within a period of three months from the appellant in case he has not paid it. Let the compliance report be filed by the Railways after a period of three months before this Court. Let the copy of the order be furnished upon the Railway authority. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the appearing parties upon compliance of necessary formalities.