JUDGMENT : The petitioner is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. In 1996, three sheds were given on lease to the petitioner as per Ext. P6 lease deed. The ownership of the shed vests with the second respondent and the property vests with the first respondent. The petitioner renovated the sheds in 1997. By Ext. P12 lease deed, the lease was renewed in 2015. In 2016, the sheds were again renovated using the petitioner’s funds. Pursuant to Ext. P18 letter issued by the second respondent, the petitioner remitted Rs. 75,933/- towards revised license fees. While so, the petitioner received Ext. P23 order from the Kozhikode Corporation to demolish the renovated building. Since the building is owned by the second respondent, he submitted an application for regularisation of the construction. In the meantime, on 31.03.2023, the lease was again renewed by Ext. P30 lease deed. To the petitioner’s shock, the CEO of the first respondent has issued Ext. P32 notice to the second respondent, directing him to issue an eviction notice to the petitioner. The allegations raised in Ext. P32 are without any basis. The second respondent has clarified that the land and building were leased to the petitioner, and the building was renovated after getting approval from the Port Department, Government of Kerala. On 15.01.2025, the petitioner was served with Ext. P40 show cause notice by the first respondent under Section 4 of the Kerala Public Buildings (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act (‘Act’, for short), 1968, directing the petitioner to show cause why they should not be evicted from the premises. The petitioner had submitted Ext. P41 reply, inter alia, contending that the Estate Officer is incompetent to initiate the proceeding. While so, without considering the contentions in Ext. P41 reply or conducting any hearing, the first respondent has passed Ext. P42 order. Ext. P42 order is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition. 2. Heard; the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government Pleader. 3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the writ petition. He also argued that the Estate Officer has no authority to issue a show cause notice invoking the provisions of the Act because the property belongs to the Government of Kerala. 3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the writ petition. He also argued that the Estate Officer has no authority to issue a show cause notice invoking the provisions of the Act because the property belongs to the Government of Kerala. Moreover, as per the various enactments, it is obligatory on the part of the state to provide facilities to seafarers. The entire procedure leading to Ext. P42 is tainted with malafides. Therefore, Ext. P42 may be quashed. 4. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 refuted the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. He argued that the writ petition is not entertainable in view of the alternative statutory remedy provided under Section 10 of the Act, which provides for an appeal against Ext. P42 order. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed on the sole ground. He also argued that the Estate Officer has the authority to issue Exts. P38 and P40 show cause notices and pass the eviction order because the petitioner has consciously executed Exts. P6, P12, P17 and P30 license deeds with the second respondent. Therefore, the petitioner is estopped from contending that the second respondent has no authority to pass Ext. P42 order, particularly in view of the explicit covenants in Ext. P30 license deed. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed. 5. The pleadings and the materials on record, unambiguously substantiate that the petitioner and the second respondent have entered into Ext. P30 license deed on 31.03.2023. 6. It is alleging violation of the covenants in Ext. P30, the Estate Officer, who as per the materials on record is the second respondent, has issued Ext. P40 show cause notice invoking the provisions of the Act. The second respondent has alleged that the petitioner had carried out unauthorised construction in the premises which tantamounts to the unauthorised occupation. 7. The petitioner has submitted Ext. P41 reply to Ext. P40 show cause notice, inter alia, contending that the Estate Officer is incompetent to initiate the proceedings under the Act. 8. Notwithstanding the objections raised by the petitioner in Ext. P41 reply, the second respondent has passed Ext. P42 eviction order, directing the petitioner to vacate the premises. 9. In the above context, it is apposite to refer to Section 5 of the Act, which reads as follows: “5. 8. Notwithstanding the objections raised by the petitioner in Ext. P41 reply, the second respondent has passed Ext. P42 eviction order, directing the petitioner to vacate the premises. 9. In the above context, it is apposite to refer to Section 5 of the Act, which reads as follows: “5. Eviction of unauthorised occupants.—(1) If, after considering the cause, if any, shown by any person in pursuance of a notice under section 4 and any evidence produced by such person in support of the same and after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard, the estate officer is satisfied that the public building is in unauthorised occupation, the estate officer may, on a date to be fixed for the purpose, make an order of eviction, for reasons to be recorded therein, directing that the public building shall be vacated by all persons who may be in occupation thereof or any part thereof, and cause a copy of the order to be published by affixing it on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public building. (2) If any person refuses or fails to comply with the order of eviction within thirty days of the date of its publication under sub-section (1), the estate officer or any other officer duly authorised by him in this behalf may evict that person from, and take possession of, the public building and may, for that purpose, use such force as may be necessary.” 10. A reading of Section 5(1) of the Act undoubtedly mandates that, if any person shows cause to a notice issued under Section 4 of the Act, the Estate Officer is bound to afford the alleged unauthorised occupant a reasonable opportunity of being heard; and only after the Estate Officer is satisfied that the public building is an unauthorised occupation, an order of eviction can be passed. 11. On a careful reading of Ext. P42 order, I find that the Estate Officer has not adverted to the contentions raised by the petitioner in Ext. P41 reply and that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of being heard before Ext. P42 order was passed. 12. It well settled judicial review under Article226 of the Constitution of India is directed, not against the decision, but the decision-making process [Read the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarvepalli Ramaiah v. District Collector, Chittor [ (2019) 4 SCC 500 ]). P42 order was passed. 12. It well settled judicial review under Article226 of the Constitution of India is directed, not against the decision, but the decision-making process [Read the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarvepalli Ramaiah v. District Collector, Chittor [ (2019) 4 SCC 500 ]). 13. On an overall consideration of the facts and materials on record, especially that the second respondent has not adverted to any of the contentions raised and the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of being heard, without expressing any thing on the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner before the second respondent, I am satisfied that Ext. P42 order is liable to be quashed, and the second respondent be directed to re-consider Ext. P40 show cause notice, after adverting to the contentions raised by the petitioner and affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard as contemplated under the provisions of the Act. In the afore said circumstances, I allow the writ petition in the following manner: i. Ext. P42 order is quashed. ii. The second respondent is at liberty to issue a fresh hearing notice to the petitioner, on which date the petitioner shall be afforded an opportunity of being heard. It is clarified that, the second respondent shall finalise the proceedings after adverting to the petitioner’s contentions in Ext. P41 reply, and pass a reasoned order, in accordance with the law. iii. Until such time orders are passed in Ext. P40 show cause, the parties are directed to maintain the status quo in respect of the premises mentioned in the show cause notice. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.