HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 21358 of 2025 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. Order on Order Sheet Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to correct the description of respondent no.2 in the array of parties during the course of the day. Order on Writ Petition 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioners by means of the present writ petition have assailed the show cause notice dated 19.06.2025 issued by the Assistant Engineer, Provincial Division, Public Works Department, Varanasi, by which he has directed the petitioners to remove the encroachment on road, and by the said notice, he has further directed the petitioners to show their title over disputed area by showing cause. 3. Challenging the aforesaid notice, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the impugned notice is without jurisdiction inasmuch as in the instant case, no proceeding under the Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act,1984 can be initiated as the dispute will come under the periphery of Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants), Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1972), and therefore, the impugned notice is without jurisdiction. He further submits that under the Act, 1972, it is only the Prescribed Authority who is conferred with the power to issue such notice, therefore, the impugned notice is without jurisdiction. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Manish Singh, Sushma Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Chedilal And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) 4. Sri Rajesh Kumar Pal, learned Standing Counsel on instructions, which is taken on record, states that in fact the petitioners have encroached upon the road, and therefore, the notice has been issued under the Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act, 1984. Accordingly, it is submitted that there is no illegality in the notice. 5. We have perused the impugned notice and find that only five days' time has been given to the petitioners to show cause. We find that reasonable opportunity of hearing has not been given to the petitioner to submit objection. 6. Accordingly, we dispose off the writ petition permitting the petitioners to file a separate detailed representation/objection to the show cause notice dated 19.06.2025 including the question of jurisdiction of the authority to issue such notice, within a period of one month from today before the respondent no.2-Assistant Engineer, Provincial Division, Public Works Department, Varanasi. On filing the said representation/objection, the respondent no.2 shall consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law after following the principle of natural justice and after supplying all the materials which are to be relied upon by the respondent no.2 against the petitioners in consideration of the representation of the petitioners within a period of one month thereafter. 7. For a period of two months from today or till the disposal of representation/objection of the petitioners, whichever is earlier, the disputed construction shall not be demolished, and petitioners shall not be evicted. September 22, 2025 NS WRIC No. 21358 of 2025 2 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad