1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2295 OF 2009 Poti Trinath Sambari Patra .. Petitioner V/s. Government of India & 4 Others .. Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2320 of 2009 Subhash R. Chauhan .. Petitioner v/s. Union of India, Directorate of Estate; Office of the Estate Manager & ors. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.888 OF 2009 Prabhakar S. Gauda .. Petitioner V/s. Government of India through Directorate of Estate & 4 Others .. Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.889 OF 2009 Hari K. Panda .. Petitioner V/s. Government of India through Directorate of Estate & 4 Others .. Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1227 OF 2009 Ram Davar A. Yadav .. Petitioner 2 V/s. Government of India through Directorate of Estate & 4 Others .. Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1228 OF 2009 Harihar U. Padhy .. Petitioner V/s. Government of India through Directorate of Estate & 4 Others .. Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1229 OF 2009 Dhoba Mahanti .. Petitioner V/s. Government of India through Directorate of Estate & 4 Others .. Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1230 OF 2009 Bhagwan H. Sahu .. Petitioner V/s. Government of India through Directorate of Estate & 4 Others .. Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1231 OF 2009 3 Shamsundar G. Gauda .. Petitioner V/s. Government of India through Directorate of Estate & 4 Others .. Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1232 OF 2009 Rameshchandra B. Sahu .. Petitioner V/s. Government of India through Directorate of Estate & 4 Others .. Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1233 OF 2009 Chakrapani J. Desiti .. Petitioner V/s. Government of India through Directorate of Estate & 4 Others .. Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1234 OF 2009 M.A.Shivmore .. Petitioner V/s. Government of India through Directorate of Estate & 4 Others .. Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1235 OF 2009 4 Sujan B. Beheara .. Petitioner V/s. Government of India through Directorate of Estate & 4 Others .. Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1236 OF 2009 Govind B. Sahu .. Petitioner V/s. Government of India through Directorate of Estate & 4 Others .. Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1237 OF 2009 Padmacharan S. Sahu .. Petitioner V/s. Government of India through Directorate of Estate & 4 Others .. Respondents. Mr. A.R. Pande i/b. Pandey & Co. for the petitioner. Ms. Kiran Kandpile a/w. V.S. Masurkar for the respondents. CORAM:- SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. DATED:- December 15, 2009. P.C. We have heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 2. It is contended on behalf of the Respondents that the order is a mere 5 administrative order passed by the Asst. Estate Manager and it is not an order under the provisions of Public Premises Unauthorized Occupants Act passed by the Estate Officer. The Petitioner is at liberty to take such steps as are permissible to them in accordance with law. But the present Writ Petition keeping in view the controverted facts will not be maintainable. It is further contended on behalf of the Respondents that the communication impugned in Writ Petition No. 888/2009 is not amenable to remedy of appeal in the facts of the present case and the order passed in companion matters is liable to be recalled. Reliance is placed on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rasila Ram & ors.-2001 (10) SCC 623. We are in agreement with this contention raised by the Respondents. Consequently, we have directed yesterday that all these 13 disposed off Writ Petitions be listed for directions today in Court. All the Petitions have been listed. 3. Accordingly, we recall the order dated 22nd June, 2009 passed in all the above Writ Petitions and instead dispose off the same with liberty to the Petitioner(s) to approach the Civil Court or any other legal remedy as is permissible to them in accordance with law, as no appeal would lie against the impugned communication. Thus, the order dated 22nd June, 2009 is recalled. All these Petitions including WP Nos. 2295/09 and 2320/09 are disposed off with 6 liberty to the Petitioner(s) to file civil suit or adopt any other legal remedy as may be permissible by law. 4. For four weeks, the impugned communication will not be given effect to. 5. All 15 Writ Petitions are disposed of by leaving the parties to bear their own cost. CHIEF JUSTICE A.M.KHANWILKAR, J