JUDGMENT : Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the notice dated 23.12.2020 issued under sub-sec. (1) and Clause (b) (ii) of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 4 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 171'). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned notice does not even mention the description of the property in the schedule and even the grounds are not mentioned as in what manner the petitioner is occupying the premise in unauthorized manner. 3. Learned counsel further submits that the Authorities before issuing even show cause notice are required to look into correct facts and after applying their mind, they can issue notice. 4. Learned counsel further submitted that the bare perusal of the notice which is filed as Annexure-9 shows that the Authority has only put their signature in the notice and filled the date without taking any pain to come to prima facie conclusion that petitioner is in unauthorized occupation. 5. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner does not have any remedy except to challenge the notice issued by the Authority in such an arbitrary manner. 6. This Court had asked learned counsel for the petitioner about maintainability of the writ petition against notice issued under Section 4 of the Act of 1971. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the Authorities do not even apply their mind to bare facts of the case and they do not even have grounds to issue notice, this Court under Article 226 can interfere in such matters. 8. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was in receipt of letter dated 17.08.2020 wherein it was communicated to the petitioner that he was to vacate Quarter No. Type-IV/04, Telecom Colony, Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur in due time i.e. by 30.09.2020. 9. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had approached initially Central Administrative Tribunal, however, since the Central Administrative Tribunal did not have jurisdiction, the petitioner has already approached the District & Sessions Judge by challenging the order dated 17.08.2020. 10. This Court finds that the notice issued to the petitioner makes a mention that the petitioner is occupant of Quarter No. Type-IV/04, Telecom Colony, Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur and he has been communicated that he is in unauthorized occupation of the public premise. 11. 10. This Court finds that the notice issued to the petitioner makes a mention that the petitioner is occupant of Quarter No. Type-IV/04, Telecom Colony, Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur and he has been communicated that he is in unauthorized occupation of the public premise. 11. This Court further finds that the petitioner has been asked to appear before the Estate Officer on certain date and in case the petitioner does not appear, the Authorities will have to proceed further in the matter. The petitioner is well within his right to file reply to show cause notice and he can always make the Authorities aware about retention of his house, whether he is in legal/authorized possession of the public premise or not. 12. This Court will not interfere in the notice issued to the petitioner. 13. This Court further finds that if any order is passed by the Estate Officer under Section 5 of the Act of 1971, the right of appeal is available under Section 9 of the Act of 1971. This Court does not intend to interfere in the show cause notice. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.