ORDER : Petitioners No.1 and 3 to 9 have been issued separate notices dated 30.01.2021 by the Forest Guard, I/C Satobari Beat, Dharamshala Forest Division. The notices direct the petitioners to remove their construction raised over the forest land, failing which legal action was to be initiated against them. But for the difference in area and nature of the construction, the separate notices issued to the petitioners have following common contents:- “Subject:- Notice. Memo, It has come to the notice of undersigned that you have Teen Pose Kokha in UP139K D/shala C-17. You are thereby served this notice to remove this construction over forest land immediately before dated 08/02/2021. If you are not Dismantle the Teen Pose Kokha then legal action will be taken against you and you will be charged for remove it. Sd/- Forest Guard, I/C Satobari Beat.” 2. Assailing these notices, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contended that the Forest Guard had no authority to issue the impugned notices. A Forest Guard is not authorized under the Himachal Pradesh Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971 (in short ‘Act’) to issue eviction notices. The Authorized Officer in terms of Section 4 of the Act is the Collector. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that as per Section 4 of the Act, in case the Collector is of the opinion that any person is in unauthorised occupation of any public premises situated within his jurisdiction and is liable to be evicted, then, he is required to issue a notice in writing, calling upon such person to show cause as to why the order of eviction should not be made. Thereafter, further procedure is provided under the Act for proceeding in the matter. In the instant case, show cause notices have not been issued to the petitioners. Notice issued by the Forest Guard is not in conformity with the provisions of the Act. 3. Learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the impugned notices have been issued to the petitioners only by way of warning and to give them a chance to remove and dismantle on their own the unauthorized structures raised by them over the forest land, failing which legal action was to be taken against them in accordance with law. 3. Learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the impugned notices have been issued to the petitioners only by way of warning and to give them a chance to remove and dismantle on their own the unauthorized structures raised by them over the forest land, failing which legal action was to be taken against them in accordance with law. The reply filed by the respondents is also to the effect that “Therefore, the proceedings under HP Public Premises Act are going to be initiated against the petitioners”. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.6, inviting attention to a judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 19.07.2021 in CWP No.3821 of 2021, titled Harnam Singh alias Rinku Chandel Versus State of H.P. & Ors., stated that the encroachments have been made by the petitioners alongside National Highway and, therefore, they are liable to be proceeded against in terms of the directions given in the aforesaid judgment. 4. In view of the stand taken by respondents No.1, 2, 4 and 5, it becomes apparent that the writ petition has been filed without there being any real cause of action available to the petitioners. The notices impugned in the petition have not been issued to the petitioners under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971. The notices have been issued only by way of warning and calling upon the petitioners to demolish on their own the unauthorized constructions raised by them on the forest land. The notices clearly state that on failure of the petitioners to comply the directions, legal action in accordance with law will be taken against them by the respondents. The reply of the respondents also states that the proceedings under the Himachal Pradesh Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971 are going to be initiated against the petitioners. In view of this stand, the contentions raised by the petitioners loose their efficacy and become wholly irrelevant. This petition is accordingly disposed of being without any substantive cause of action. Respondents No.1 to 5 are at liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law and also keeping in view the directions issued by this Court in the judgment dated 19.07.2021 rendered in CWP No.3821 of 2021. This petition is accordingly disposed of being without any substantive cause of action. Respondents No.1 to 5 are at liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law and also keeping in view the directions issued by this Court in the judgment dated 19.07.2021 rendered in CWP No.3821 of 2021. It is hoped and expected that all necessary actions shall be taken by the respondents within a reasonable time. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.