Writ petitions rendered infructuous upon the Estate Officer providing a personal hearing and passing a reasoned order.

The Petitioners filed three separate Writ Petitions challenging Show Cause Notices dated 28.04.2026 issued by the Estate Officer (Respondent No. 2) under Section 5A of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971

The Petitioners alleged that the notices were issued in an arbitrary and "impromptu" manner without following due process

Specifically, the Petitioners expressed apprehension that the wording of the notices suggested their responses would not be genuinely considered and that the removal of their structures was a pre-decided outcome

During the pendency of the proceedings, the Estate Officer conducted a hearing on 04.06.2026 where the Petitioners were represented

1. Whether the impugned Show Cause Notices dated 28.04.2026 violated the principles of natural justice by demonstrating a premeditated mindset toward the removal of the structures

2. Whether the Writ Petitions survived for consideration in light of the subsequent hearing and Order passed by the Estate Officer on 04.06.2026

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India regarding the High Court's discretionary jurisdiction to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental and legal rights

Principle of natural justice, specifically audi alteram partem (the right to a fair hearing), and the requirements for a valid Show Cause Notice under Section 5A of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971

The court examined the Petitioners' grievance that the phraseology of the notices—threatening recovery of removal costs as land revenue arrears—indicated a lack of "due consideration" for any potential objections

It noted that the Estate Officer had, in fact, afforded the Petitioners a personal hearing on 04.06.2026, accepted their written representations, and subsequently passed a formal Order

The court reasoned that since the Petitioners had actually participated in the legal process and their objections were recorded and considered, the initial apprehension of "premeditated mindset" was no longer valid or actionable

The Writ Petitions were rendered infructuous. The court disposed of the petitions along with all pending applications, noting that since a hearing had been provided and an order passed, no further directions were necessary