IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 77 OF 2008 M/S SOUTH WEST PORT LTD. FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. ABG GOA PORT LTD ... Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate with Mr. H. D. Naik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G. Teles, Advocate holding for Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Asst. Solicitor General for respondent No.1. Mr. V. B. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate with Mr. Y. V. Nadkarni, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3. Coram:- B. P. DHARMADHIKARI & U. D. SALVI, JJ. Date:- 22nd June, 2009 P.C. Heard. The matter is being mentioned on behalf of Advocate C.A. Ferreira as he is not available. However, after hearing both sides, we are satisfied that his presence is not required today. 2. Senior Advocate Nadkarni, appearing for respondents No.2 and 3 states that in order to show fairness and bonafide, respondents No.2 and 3 have, on their own, decided to withdraw the notice issued to the petitioner and to appoint another person as an Estate Officer to conduct the proceedings against the petitioner. He, therefore, states that the grievance raised in the present petition has become infructuous. 3. Senior Advocate A.N.S. Nadkarni for the petitioner states that as per directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the parties have appeared before the Hon'ble Retired Judge of the Supreme Court of India, B. P. Jeevan Reddy, and the Hon'ble Judge has delivered an Award. It is his contention that in view of that Award, there cannot be any recourse to eviction proceedings. Learned Advocate on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3 disputes this position and he contends that there is no bar to such proceedings before the Estate Officer. We find that the issue can very well be raised before the Estate Officer, and after hearing both sides the issue can be appropriately decided, in accordance with law by the said Officer. Senior Advocate A.N.S. Nadkarni also states that changed Estate Officer may not have been appointed after following the procedure prescribed under the Act. Learned Senior Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3 refutes this and states that the other Estate Officer is also appointed by respondents No.2 and 3. He invites our attention to the Notification dated 10.3.1992 filed in this respect. The petitioners contend that their objection on the ground of bias may also survive against the changed Estate Officer. We find that this aspect can also be raised before the changed Estate Officer and can be looked into by him. 4. In so far as bonafide of the petition is concerned, the facts above clearly shows that the grievance made therein has been satisfied and we, therefore, dispose of this petition as infructuous. B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. U. D. SALVI, J. ssm.