JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a) Quash the order passed by the 2nd respondent, Executive Officer Taluk Panchayat, dtd. 28/4/2015, rejecting the appeal filed under Sec. 269 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act 1993 produced at Annexure-A, or in the alternative, b) Quash the notice / order dtd. 16/3/2012, passed by the 3rd respondent, produced at Annexure-B. c) pass such other order or direction, this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that, the petitioner, who is running a cement business in shop No.12 at Raibag Railway Station, was issued a notice/order dtd. 16/3/2012, directing him to vacate the premises on or before 23/12/2012. The said order dtd. 16/3/2012 is on the basis of the oral instructions of the respondent No.1, based on an alleged complaint of respondent No.4, without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. 3. Subsequently, the petitioner filed necessary proceedings challenging the said notice under Sec. (2) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short), which came to be dismissed on the ground that the respondent No.3 is not an Estate Officer and therefore, no powers can be exercised under Sec. 9(2) of the Act. The petitioner was relegated to file necessary proceedings before the respondent No.2 in appeal against the order passed by the respondent No.3. The petitioner therefore filed an appeal, which came to be disposed of vide order dtd. 28/4/2015, which is under challenge in these proceedings. 4. Sri. Rajeshekhar Burji, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the impugned order at Annexure-A is only a cut and paste order inasmuch as page Nos. 1 and half portion of page No.2 are extracts of the appeal memo filed by the petitioner. The second half of page No.2, the entire page No.3 and the half portion of page No.4 are the verbatim reproduction of the objections filed by respondent No.2 and the final order is only four lines, wherein the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected and the order of the 3rd respondent has been confirmed. Thus, he submits there is complete lack of application of mind. Thus, he submits there is complete lack of application of mind. None of the contentions of the petitioner have been considered and no deliberation having occurred in the said order, the said order is required to be quashed. 5. Per contra, Sri. V. S. Kalasurmath, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 would submit that the order has been passed by respondent No.2, which is required to be defended by respondents No.2 and 3. 6. Notice having been issued to respondent Nos. 2 and 3, though they have been served, none has entered appearance for the said respondents. Thus, the order is not defended. 7. Ms. Priyanka Pawar for Sri. Santosh B. Malagoudar, learned counsel for respondent No.4 would support the order passed by respondent No.2 and submits that the writ petition is required to be dismissed. 8. Heard Sri. Rajeshekhar Burji, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. V. S. Kalasurmath, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and Miss. Priyanka Pawar for Sri. Santosh B. Malagoudar, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Perused the records. 9. The order under challenge is one more classic case of an order passed by Executive Officer exercising quasi-judicial functions, which does not contain any reasons. This Court has come across in several matters the practice of copying and posting the appeal memo and objections and finally the order is 4 to 5 lines. In most of these orders, there is no application of mind, this is probably because they have no training in writing orders. The contentions are not even deliberated upon or considered. The applicable law is neither applied nor considered, the order being completely in violation of the applicable procedures, are more often than are set aside by this Court like that which is required to be done in the present matter. When such orders are passed by the Executive Officer of Taluka Panchayat or Gram Panchayat, though notice is ordered, none appears and the matter goes uncontested. Apart there from, there is no assistance rendered to the Court while dealing with the said matters because of such non-appearance. Only the Government Advocate or the learned HCGP appears in the matter, who has no instructions and they are also unable to assist the Court. Hence I pass the following: ORDER a. The writ petition is allowed. Apart there from, there is no assistance rendered to the Court while dealing with the said matters because of such non-appearance. Only the Government Advocate or the learned HCGP appears in the matter, who has no instructions and they are also unable to assist the Court. Hence I pass the following: ORDER a. The writ petition is allowed. b. Annexure-B - notice, which has been issued by the Estate Officer, who is not authorized to exercise powers under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, is quashed. c. Consequently, the impugned order at Annexure-A dtd. 28/4/2015 passed by the 2nd respondent is quashed. d. Learned HCGP is directed to bring the above to the notice of the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department. e. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department is requested to organize training of the Officers exercising quasi-judicial powers to appreciate the applicable law, in order to enable them in discharging their responsibilities as quasi judicial officer in a proper and required manner. Unless such training is imparted, it would be difficult for them to discharge their obligations, so as to meet the requirements of the applicable law and should stand the scrutiny of Courts. f. The Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development is also directed to web host the address book of all Zilla Panchayats, Town Panchayats and Gram Panchayats with the e-mail ID and mobile number of the person in-charge of litigation in the respective Zilla Panchayats, Town Panchayats or Gram Panchayats. This would enable this Court and other Courts to effect service of notice on the said authority so that the said authority does not go unrepresented. g. It is also advisable that, if there is a lawyer appointed for the respective Zilla Panchayat, Town Panchayat or Gram Panchayat, the name of the said counsel along with his/her e-mail ID and mobile number also be web hosted to enable service and correspondence with the said counsel. h. A compliance report of the above to be filed within a period of eight weeks from today (i.e., on or before 31/5/2022).