JUDGMENT 1. In view of the urgency, the matter is taken up for hearing today. The respondent authorities are directed to regularize the appointment of Mr. D.C.Kabir, Mr. S.Ajith Prasad, Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty and Mr. Ramendu Agarwal, as counsel to represent the respondents in the present matter. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the notice issued under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 was not tenable in the eye of law on several grounds. It is contended that not only did the author of the said notice have no jurisdiction as Estate Officer on the relevant date to issue the same, the petitioner's occupation was not unauthorized on the relevant date. Learned counsel places reliance on several documents annexed to the writ petition. 3. Such contentions are squarely controverted by learned counsel appearing for the respondent authorities and it is submitted that sharp practices are going on in respect of this matter. 4. It is further contended that by misinterpreting an order of a Division Bench passed in a connected matter, the petitioner has claimed the right of occupacy in respect of the shed inquestion whereas the said order merely indicated that the petitioner would be entitled to act in terms of such permit upto the date of expiry of the tenure of the same. 5. It is further contended, in elaborate details, that the invoices raised in respect of dues from the petitioner, which have been contended to be time barred by the petitioner, were only raised due to the request by the petitioner to enable it to clear off its dues. However, it is contended that there arises no question of the impugned notice being vitiated in any manner whatsoever. 6. I do not intend to go into the merits and/or decide the same in respect of the present challenge in view of the nature of the order which I propose to pass in the matter. 7. Since the dispute involved in the writ petition has mixed elements of fact and law, it would only be appropriate if this Court does not, in its exercise under Article 226 of the Constitution, usurp the jurisdiction of the Estate Officer designated by the 1971 Act to decide on such issue. 7. Since the dispute involved in the writ petition has mixed elements of fact and law, it would only be appropriate if this Court does not, in its exercise under Article 226 of the Constitution, usurp the jurisdiction of the Estate Officer designated by the 1971 Act to decide on such issue. Moreover, in the event any order is passed on merits in the writ petition in respect of the challenge taken out therein, there would always be a chance of either of the parties losing two forums and/or the Estate Officer being prejudiced with the observations made by this Court on merits, if so made, in the further stages of the proceeding. 8. In view of the above reasons, I deem it prudent to relegate the matter for adjudication before the Estate Officer. 9. Hence, WPA/225/2022 is disposed of by granting leave to the parties to agitate all points contended in the present writ petition in the proceeding pending before the Estate Officer, including the objection as to jurisdiction of the Estate Officer sought to be ventilated by the petitioner. 10. If such points are raised before the Estate Officer, the latter will decide the same on merits upon giving an adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties in accordance with law without being influenced in any manner by any of the observations made herein. 11. However, since the petitioner has not yet filed its written objection before the Estate Officer in the main proceeding, the time for filing such written objection is extended till July 29, 2022. It is made clear that the time frame as stipulated above is peremptory and, in the event the petitioner fails, for any reason whatsoever, to file its objection in the main proceeding before the Estate Officer on or before July 29,2022, it will be open to the Estate Officer to proceed without any further opportunity being given to the petitioner to file written objection and to decide the matter on merits. 12. In the event such objection is filed on or before July 29, 2022, the Estate Officer shall decide the main proceeding pending before it as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a month thereafter. 13. In view of the above, the connected application, being CAN/1/2022, stands disposed of accordingly. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the respective parties upon compliance of usual formalities.