ssp 1 WP(L) 2640 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO.2640 OF 2011 Union of India, through Regional Director, Indiatourism .....Petitioner versus Union of India, through, the General Manager, Western Railway and Anr. ..... Respondents Mr.G.R.Sharma i/by Ms.Purnima Awasthi, for the petitioner. Mr.Suresh Kumar, for the respondents. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE: 09 th DECEMBER, 2011 P.C. 1. It is unfortunate that one department of Union of India is fighting with another department. The fight is between Tourism Department and Western Railway administration. By way of this petition, the petitioner challenges the notice issued by the respondent No. 2 Estate Officer under Section 4 of the Public Premises Eviction Act. The petitioner is called upon to show cause as to why eviction order should not be passed against it. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not in unauthorised occupation, as the petitioner has paid rent upto 30-03-2012, which is accepted by the respondents. In our view, ssp 2 WP(L) 2640 of 2011 since the proceedings are pending before the Competent Authority, this Court would not like to intercept the proceedings at this stage. It will be open to the petitioner to give appropriate reply in this behalf before the Competent Authority under the said Act and thereafter, the Competent Authority may adjudicate the matter and may take appropriate decision and if such decision is against the petitioner, they are entitled to have efficacious remedy of appeal before the appropriate Court. Needless to say that till the competent authority passes appropriate order, the petitioner cannot be evicted unless such eviction order is passed by the competent authority. If the said order is against the petitioner, they have alternate remedy to challenge the said order before the appropriate Civil Court and during available limitation period, if such proceedings are undertaken upto such limitation period, the respondent cannot take possession of the disputed premises and the apprehension on the part of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not well founded. This Court would not like to entertain the above petition, especially when there is an alternate remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner to challenge the order passed by the Estate Officer. 3. In view of what is stated above, the writ petition is disposed of. ( MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)