JUDGMENT : Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. 1. Heard Sri P.K. Singh, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri S.S. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vivek Ratan Agrawal, learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the shop No. 2 - Vidyut Vihar Colony, Yamuna Shopping Centre (SSC Market), Singrauli, was allotted by the respondents to the petitioner on 1.4.1987. Subsequently, in the year 1994, the petitioner moved an application for allotment of additional land to expand business. On the said application, the respondents granted permission to the petitioner to erect a temporary shed over an area of 9 x 4.6 meters. Thereafter, the petitioner unauthorisedly and illegally raised pucca construction over an area of 59.22 square meters. Consequently, the respondent No. 1 issued a notice dated 23.9.2017 for removal of the aforesaid illegal pucca construction. The contents of this notice are referable to the provisions of section 5-A of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants), 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') but in the notice, the section 4(ii)(b) was mentioned. The petitioner submitted his objections. After considering the objections of the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 passed the impugned order dated 7.2.2018 under section 5-A(2) of the Act directing to remove unauthorised pucca construction raised by the petitioner over the land measuring 59.22 square meters. Aggrieved with this order, the petitioner filed a Civil Misc. Appeal No. 05 of 2018, which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 30.5.2019 passed by the District Judge, Sonbhadra. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order dated 7.2.2018 passed by the respondent No. 1 and the appellate judgment dated 30.5.2019, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 7.2.2018 passed by the respondent No. 1 was wholly without jurisdiction inasmuch as no notice under section 5-A was given to the petitioner. The notice was given under section 4(2) and, therefore, the impugned order under section 5-A(2) was passed without any notice. He submits that the order passed under section 5-A was not appealable as held by the Full Bench of this Court in Yogesh Agarwal v. Estate Officer and others: 2016 (115) ALR 240 (F.B.). The notice was given under section 4(2) and, therefore, the impugned order under section 5-A(2) was passed without any notice. He submits that the order passed under section 5-A was not appealable as held by the Full Bench of this Court in Yogesh Agarwal v. Estate Officer and others: 2016 (115) ALR 240 (F.B.). He submits that since the order under section 5-A of the Act was not appealable under section 9 of the Act, therefore, the impugned appellate order dated 30.5.2019 is also wholly without jurisdiction. 4. Sri Vivek Ratan Agarwal, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has challenged the order dated 7.2.2018 passed by the respondent No. 1 as well as appellate order dated 30.5.2019. He submits that even if it is assumed that the order dated 7.2.2018 was not appealable yet the appeal was filed by the petitioner himself and not by the respondents and in any case, both the orders are under challenge in the present petition. He submits that the validity of the impugned order dated 7.2.2018, may be decided even in this petition. The impugned order dated 7.2.2018 was passed well in accordance with law and it does not suffer from any infirmity even on the admitted facts of the case. He also draws attention of the Court to the statement made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner as noted in the order dated 26.6.2019 and submits that the petitioner has no equity in his favour. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsels for the parties. 6. Undisputedly the petitioner has raised unauthorised and illegal construction over an area of 59.22 square metre. The notice dated 23.9.2017 was issued to the petitioner for removal of unauthorised construction and not for eviction of the petitioner from the shop allotted to him. Mere reference of a wrong provision in the notice shall not invalidate the notice. The contents of the notice are clearly referable to the provisions of section 5-A(2) of the Act. The petitioner submitted his reply. His reply was considered and the impugned order dated 7.2.2018 was passed under section 5-A(2) of the Act. Thus, there was no denial of the principles of natural justice. Section 5-A(2) of the Act, clearly provides for removal of unauthorised construction. The respondent No. 1 has the power for removal of unauthorised construction raised by the petitioner. His reply was considered and the impugned order dated 7.2.2018 was passed under section 5-A(2) of the Act. Thus, there was no denial of the principles of natural justice. Section 5-A(2) of the Act, clearly provides for removal of unauthorised construction. The respondent No. 1 has the power for removal of unauthorised construction raised by the petitioner. Even before this Court, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated on 26.6.2019 that the petitioner is ready to comply the directions issued by the respondent No. 1., namely the Estate Officer, N.T.P.C. Singrauli, Shakti Nagar, District Sonbhadra so as to confirm the requirements of the permission letter dated 30.1.2006. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has expressed apprehension that under the garb of the removal order dated 7.2.2018, the respondents may evict the petitioner or may even remove the permitted temporary construction. Sri Vivek Ratan Agarwal, learned Counsel for the respondent states that the respondents shall remove only the unauthorised and illegal pucca construction raised by the petitioner over an area of 59.22 square metres and not beyond that. In view of the statement made by the learned Counsel, I do not find any substance in the apprehension expressed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 8. For all the reasons aforestated, I do not find any merit in this petition. The impugned order dated 7.2.2018 passed by the respondent No. 1 for removal of unauthorised and illegal construction under section 5-A(2) of the Act, is wholly valid and does not suffer from any infirmity. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.