JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. S. Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Central Government Counsel for all the respondents. 2. The petitioners, 6 [six] in nos., have joined together to institute the present writ petition seeking to invoke the extra-ordinary and discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail eviction notices, all dated 15.02.2024, served upon them by the respondent no. 4, that is, the Estate Officer, N.F. Railway, Rangia Division, Rangia. 3. The case projected by the petitioners, in brief, is that they are members of one family and their predecessors-in-interest were enjoying peaceful possession of a plot of land measuring 3 Bighas 2 Kathas 2 Lessas [03B-02K-02L], covered by Dag no. 1627 & Patta no. 49, situate at Revenue Village – Bartezpur, Mauza – Rampur, Palasbari Revenue Circle, District – Kamrup, Assam [‘the subject-plot’, for short] since long and the jurisdictional Mouzadar had/has been issuing land revenue receipts acknowledging receipt of land revenue from the predecessors-in-interest/petitioners. To substantiate such contention, the petitioners have annexed few of the land revenue receipts with the writ petition. It is the further case of the petitioner that the subject-plot measuring 3 Bighas 2 Kathas 2 Lessas [03B-02K-02L] had been mutated in favour of the petitioners and other member of the family by an Order dated 27.02.2022 passed by the Circle Officer in Mutation Case no. KAM/PAL/2021-22/10785/CONV. In the process, the subject-plot which was under annual patta earlier, has been converted into periodic patta with Dag no. 1627 and Patta no. 49. With such projections, the petitioners have claimed that they have the status of a land holder under Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 in so far as the subject-plot is concerned. The petitioners have claimed that they are in possession of the subject-plot for a long period of time. 4. The notices which have been served upon the petitioners by the respondent no. 4 in his capacity as the Estate Officer, N.F. Railway, Rangia, state that the said notices are issued under sub-section [1] and Clause [b][ii] of subsection [2] of Section 4 of the Public Premises [Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants] Act, 1971 [‘the Public Premises Act’, for short]. In the notices, the respondent no. 4 in his capacity as the Estate Officer, N.F. Railway, Rangia, state that the said notices are issued under sub-section [1] and Clause [b][ii] of subsection [2] of Section 4 of the Public Premises [Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants] Act, 1971 [‘the Public Premises Act’, for short]. In the notices, the respondent no. 4 has mentioned that he is of the opinion, on the grounds specified therein, that the petitioners are in unauthorised occupation of the public premises mentioned in the Schedules therein and the petitioners should be evicted from those public premises. The grounds mentioned in the notices are similar and the grounds are : [1] that the land in question is a Railway land; [2] that the petitioners are unauthorisedly occupying the land; and [3] that, the Railway authorities require the land for development work. In the notices, the description of the plots of land which are under alleged unauthorised occupation of the petitioners, are shown as under :- Sl. No Petitioner Schedule 1 Petitioner no. 1 An area of Railway Land measuring 43.68 Sqm. at Kukurmara, Km. 142/6-7 occupied by erecting unauthorised Semi Pucca structure[s] and being used for Residential purpose under Dakhin Sarubanswar [Rampur] mouza in the district of Kamrup [Assam] which is bounded by North-Vacate land, South-Railway Track, East-LHS Br. No. 678 and West-Bridge no. 676 on Kulsi River. And covered by Railway Plot No. 56 at Kukurmara, Km. 142/6-7. 2 Petitioner no. 2 An area of Railway Land measuring 40.59 Sqm. at Kukurmara, Km. 142/6-7 occupied by erecting unauthorised Semi Pucca structure[s] and being used for Residential purpose under Dakhin Sarubanswar [Rampur] mouza in the district of Kamrup [Assam] which is bounded by North-Vacate land, South-Railway Track, East-LHS Br. No. 678 and West-Bridge no. 676 on Kulsi River. And covered by Railway Plot No. 55 at Kukurmara, Km. 142/6-7. 3 Petitioner no. 3 An area of Railway Land measuring 39.36 Sqm. at Kukurmara, Km. 142/6-7 occupied by erecting unauthorised Semi Pucca structure[s] and being used for Residential purpose under Dakhin Sarubanswar [Rampur] mouza in the district of Kamrup [Assam] which is bounded by North-Vacate land, South-Railway Track, East-LHS Br. No. 678 and West-Bridge no. 676 on Kulsi River. And covered by Railway Plot No. 51 at Kukurmara, Km. 142/6-7. 4 Petitioner no. 4 An area of Railway Land measuring 41.82 Sqm. at Kukurmara, Km. No. 678 and West-Bridge no. 676 on Kulsi River. And covered by Railway Plot No. 51 at Kukurmara, Km. 142/6-7. 4 Petitioner no. 4 An area of Railway Land measuring 41.82 Sqm. at Kukurmara, Km. 142/6-7 occupied by erecting unauthorised Semi Pucca structure[s] and being used for Residential purpose under Dakhin Sarubanswar [Rampur] mouza in the district of Kamrup [Assam] which is bounded by North-Vacate land, South-Railway Track, East-LHS Br. No. 678 and West-Bridge no. 676 on Kulsi River. And covered by Railway Plot No. 52 at Kukurmara, Km. 142/6-7. 5 Petitioner no. 5 An area of Railway Land measuring 40.18 Sqm. at Kukurmara, Km. 142/6-7 occupied by erecting unauthorised Semi Pucca structure[s] and being used for Residential purpose under Dakhin Sarubanswar [Rampur] mouza in the district of Kamrup [Assam] which is bounded by North-Vacate land, South-Railway Track, East-LHS Br. No. 678 and West-Bridge no. 676 on Kulsi River. And covered by Railway Plot No. 54 at Kukurmara, Km. 142/6-7. 6 Petitioner no. 6 An area of Railway Land measuring 42.84 Sqm. at Kukurmara, Km. 142/6-7 occupied by erecting unauthorised Semi Pucca structure[s] and being used for Residential purpose under Dakhin Sarubanswar [Rampur] mouza in the district of Kamrup [Assam] which is bounded by North-Vacate land, South-Railway Track, East-LHS Br. No. 678 and West-Bridge no. 676 on Kulsi River. And covered by Railway Plot No. 53 at Kukurmara, Km. 142/6-7. 5. By the notices, the Estate Officer, N.F. Railway has called upon the petitioners to appear before him in person or through a duly authoised representative capable to answer all material questions connected with the matter along with the evidence which the petitioners would intend to produce in support of the show cause at the time, date and place, mentioned therein. It has been further observed that if the petitioners fail to appear at the time, date and place, the case would be decided ex-parte. On being served with the notices, all dated 15.02.2024, the petitioners submitted a representation stating that the subject-plot which is under their possession and occupation is inherited by them. The subject-plot was earlier annual patta land but in the year 2022, the State Government has issued periodic patta in their favour and accordingly, their names have been mutated in the revenue records. 6. The subject-plot was earlier annual patta land but in the year 2022, the State Government has issued periodic patta in their favour and accordingly, their names have been mutated in the revenue records. 6. It is in the backdrop of the above fact situation obtaining in the case, the issue which has arisen as to whether the present writ petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India is to be entertained or not. 7. On the basis of the Jamabandi [Record of Rights], the petitioners have projected that they have a clear case that they are landholders under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 and as such, they are entitled to the rights under Section 9 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, meaning thereby, they have permanent, heritable and transferable right of use and occupancy in respect of the subject-plot, subject to payment of all revenue, taxes, cesses and rates from time to time legally assessed. On the other hand, the respondent Railway authorities through the respondent no. 4 have laid a claim in respect of the plots of land shown in the Schedules of the show cause notices, already indicated in the Tables hereinabove. 8. Thus, in so far as the descriptions of the plots of lands are concerned, the land in respect of which the petitioners have claimed their rights are at variance with the plots of land in respect of which the respondent Railway authorities have claimed their rights on the ground that those parcels of land are public premises. Resultantly, the same has given rise to a disputed question of fact. 9. The Public Premises Act is enacted for providing for effective machinery for eviction of persons in unauthorised occupation of public premises and certain incidental matters. Section 2[e] has provided for the definition of public premises. Public Premises inter alia indicates any premises belonging to or taken on lease, hire or requisitioned by or on behalf of the Central Government. Section 3 has provided for appointment of Estate Officer. Section 2[e] has provided for the definition of public premises. Public Premises inter alia indicates any premises belonging to or taken on lease, hire or requisitioned by or on behalf of the Central Government. Section 3 has provided for appointment of Estate Officer. As per sub-section [1] of Section 4, if the Estate Officer has any information that any person is in unauthorised occupation of any public premises and that he should be evicted, the Estate Officer has to issue a notice in writing in the manner therein provided within 7 [seven] working days from the date of receipt of information regarding unauthorised occupation calling upon the person concerned to show cause as to why an order of eviction should not be made. As per sub-section [1A], if the Estate Officer knows or has reasons to believe that any person is in unauthorised occupation of the public premises, then, without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section [1], he shall forthwith issue a notice in writing calling upon the person concerned to show cause why an order of eviction should not be made. As per sub-section [2] of Section 4, the notice shall – [a] specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made; [b] require all persons concerned, that is to say, all persons who are, or may be, in occupation of, or claim interest in, the public premises – [i] to show cause, if any, against the proposed order on or before such date as is specified in the notice, being a date not later than seven days from the date of issue thereof; and [ii] to appear before the Estate Officer on the date specified in the notice along with the evidence which they intend to produce in support of the cause shown, and also for personal hearing, if such hearing is desired. Sub-section [3] of Section 4 requires the Estate Officer to cause the notice to be served in the manner mentioned therein. 10. Sub-section [1] of Section 5 has provided for the procedure to be followed by the Estate Officer after considering the causes shown by the person who has been served with the notice under Section 4 and the evidence produced before him. 10. Sub-section [1] of Section 5 has provided for the procedure to be followed by the Estate Officer after considering the causes shown by the person who has been served with the notice under Section 4 and the evidence produced before him. As per sub-section [1] of Section 5, if, after considering the cause, if any, shown by any person in pursuance of a notice under Section 4 and any evidence produced by him in support of the same and after personal hearing, if any, given under sub-clause [ii] of clause [b] of sub-section [2] of Section 4, the Estate Officer is satisfied that the public premises are in unauthorised occupation, the Estate Officer shall make an order of eviction, for reasons to be recorded therein, directing that the public premises shall be vacated, on such date as may be specified in the order but not later than fifteen days from the date of the order, by all persons who may be in occupation thereof or any part thereof, and cause a copy of the order to be affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises, provided that every order under the said sub-section shall be made by the Estate Officer as expeditiously as possible and all endeavour shall be made by him to issue the order within fifteen days of the date specified in the notice under sub-section [1] or subsection [1A], as the case may be, of Section 4. The other situation, that is, if the Estate Officer is satisfied that the noticee is not in unauthorised occupation of any public premises as indicated in the show cause notice, he cannot pass an order of eviction is also to be read into the provision of Section 5. 11. Rule 4 of the Public Premises [Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants] Rules, 1971, framed under Section 18 of the Public Premises Act, 1971, has provided for the manner of service of notices and orders. Rule 5 thereof has provided for holding of inquiries. As per sub-rule [1] of Rule 5, where any person on whom a notice or order under the Public Premises Act has been served desires to be heard through his representative he should authorise such representative in writing. Sub-rule [2] of Rule 5 has cast an obligation on the Estate Officer to record the summary of the evidence tendered before him. Sub-rule [2] of Rule 5 has cast an obligation on the Estate Officer to record the summary of the evidence tendered before him. The summary of such evidence and any relevant documents filed before him shall form part of the records of the proceedings. It is pertinent to note that any order passed by an Estate Officer in Section 5 of the Public Premises Act is an appealable order under Section 9 of the Public Premises Act. 12. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Nusli Neville Wadia and another, reported in [2008] 3 SCC 279, that the action of State or any instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India must be fair and reasonable. The action of the State or an instrumentality of the State in terms of the Public Premises Act should not be arbitrary, unreasonable or mala fide. The Estate Officer being a creature of the statute must adhere to the prescriptions of the Public Premises Act, 1971. It has been observed that the statute, although, does not require a lengthy hearing or a lengthy cross-examination but the noticee should be given an opportunity to file an effective show cause. The effective show cause can be filed when eviction is sought for a specified ground and the occupants must know the particulars in relation thereto. It has been further observed that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Evidence Act are not applicable but the principles of natural justice must be followed. When in support of its case, the landlord intends to rely upon a document which is to be taken on record, it would be obligatory on the part of the Estate Officer to allow inspection thereof to the noticee. Denial of such inspection of documents shall be violative of the principles of natural justice. It would run counter to the doctrine of fairness in the matter of determination of a lis between the parties. 13. As it prima facie appears that the petitioners’ claim regarding their status as landholders in respect of the subject-plot against the plots of land mentioned in the Schedules to the notices would fall for consideration of the Estate Officer, the following observations in Nusli Neville Wadia [supra], appears apposite : 49. 13. As it prima facie appears that the petitioners’ claim regarding their status as landholders in respect of the subject-plot against the plots of land mentioned in the Schedules to the notices would fall for consideration of the Estate Officer, the following observations in Nusli Neville Wadia [supra], appears apposite : 49. Section 5 of the Act, on a plain reading, would place the entire onus upon a noticee. It, in no uncertain terms, states that once a notice under Section 4 is issued by the Estate Officer on formation of his opinion as envisaged therein it is for the noticee not only to show cause in respect thereof but also adduce evidence and make oral submissions in support of his case. Literal meaning in a situation of this nature would lead to a conclusion that the landlord is not required to adduce any evidence at all nor it is required even to make any oral submissions. Such a literal construction would lead to an anomalous situation because the landlord may not be heard at all. It may not even be permitted to adduce any evidence in rebuttal to the one adduced by the noticee nor it would be permitted to advance any argument. Is this contemplated in law? The answer must be rendered in the negative. When a landlord files an application, it in a given situation must be able to lead evidence either at the first instance or after the evidence is led by the noticee to establish its case and/or in rebuttal to the evidence led by the noticee. 14. Ordinarily, a writ petition against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is not to be entertained the reason being that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ lies when some right of any party is infringed. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of any one. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge sheet. It is only in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter [Ref : Union of India and another vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, [2006] 12 SCC 28]. 15. In Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board vs. Ramesh Kumar Singh and others, [1996] 1 SCC 327, the first respondent was served with a show cause notice [Ext. P-4] by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate as the competent authority [the respondent no. 3] in connection with an eviction proceedings drawn up under the provisions of the Bihar State Housing Board Act which permitted the respondent Bihar State Housing Board [‘the Board’, for short] to evict persons who were in unauthorised occupation, through designated competent authority. The show cause notice was served upon the first respondent stating that he was an unauthorised occupant. The first respondent instead of showing cause against the show cause notice approached the High Court by filing a writ petition to challenge the show cause notice. The first respondent claimed that the concerned premises did not belong to the respondent Board. The High Court quashed the show cause notice. When the respondent Board approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in appeal by special leave, it has been observed as under : 10. We are concerned in this case, with the entertainment of the writ petition against a show-cause notice issued by a competent statutory authority. The High Court quashed the show cause notice. When the respondent Board approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in appeal by special leave, it has been observed as under : 10. We are concerned in this case, with the entertainment of the writ petition against a show-cause notice issued by a competent statutory authority. It should be borne in mind that there is not attack against the vires of the statutory provisions governing the matter. No question of infringement of any fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution is alleged or proved. It cannot be said that Ext. P-4 notice is ex facie a ‘nullity’ or totally ‘without jurisdiction’ in the traditional sense of that expression -that is to say, that even the commencement or initiation of the proceedings, on the face of it and without anything more, is totally unauthorised. In such a case, for entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against a show-cause notice, at that stage, it should be shown that the authority has no power or jurisdiction, to enter upon the enquiry in question. In all other cases, it is only appropriate that the party should avail of the alternate remedy and show cause against the same before the authority concerned and take up the objection regarding jurisdiction also, then. In the event of an adverse decision, it will certainly be open to him to assail the same either in appeal or revision, as the case may be, or in appropriate cases, by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. On the facts of this case, we hold that the first respondent was unjustified in invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, without first showing cause against Annexure Ext. P-4 before the third respondent. The appropriate procedure for the first respondent would have been to file his objections and place necessary materials before the third respondent and invite a decision as to whether the proceedings initiated by the third respondent under Section 59 of the Bihar State Housing Board Act, 1982, are justified and appropriate. The adjudication in that behalf necessarily involves disputed questions of fact which require investigation. In such a case, proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution can hardly be an appropriate remedy. The adjudication in that behalf necessarily involves disputed questions of fact which require investigation. In such a case, proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution can hardly be an appropriate remedy. The High Court committed a grave error in entertaining the writ petition and in allowing the same by quashing Annexure Ext. P-4 and also the eviction proceedings No. 6 of 1992, without proper and fair investigation of the basic facts. We are, therefore, constrained to set aside the judgment of the High Court of Patna in CWJC No. 82 of 1993 dated 10-2-1993. We hereby do so. The appeal is allowed with costs. 16. In the fact situation obtaining in the present case, as have been exposited above, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners should, at first, respond to the show cause notice by filing their reply to the show cause notice along with all the supporting documents in support of their claim regarding their status of landholders in respect of the subject-land vis-à-vis the claim of the Estate Officer that they are in unauthorised occupation of public premises. As the petitioners have participatory rights in the proceedings initiated by the Estate Officer, N.F. Railway vide the show cause notices dated 15.02.2024 issued under Section 4 of the Public Premises Act in the proceedings before him and they have the right to lead evidence in support of their claim regarding their status of land holders in respect of subject-plot and the Estate Officer is under obligation to decide the proceedings by following the principles of natural justice including affording of opportunities of hearing to the petitioners in a fair and impartial manner and only on the basis of the summary of evidence recorded in the proceedings, the writ petition is found to be a premature one. Any order to be passed by the Estate Officer under Section 5 of the Public Premises Act is appealable under Section 9 of the Public Premises Act before the jurisdictional District Judge. 17. In such view of the matter, the writ petition is not entertained because the petitioners have approached this Court at a premature stage. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed. No cost.