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 o