WPMS 1895/2011 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Sri Atul Kumar Bansal, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.C. Bisht, the learned Brief Holder for respondent nos. 1 to 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court finds that proceedings under the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 has been initiated against the petitioner, which is pending before the court concerned. On the other hand, it is alleged that on a complaint made by respondent no. 4, the District Magistrate has directed an enquiry to be initiated against the petitioner. This complaint is also alleged to have been initiated in the year 2009. The petitioner has now approached to this Court on the basis of an alleged newspaper report dated 27.8.2011 contending that the public has raised a grievance for the removal of the unauthorized encroachment allegedly raised by the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that two proceedings cannot be initiated simultaneously and that the respondents cannot take the law into their own hands and evict the petitioner forcefully when the eviction proceedings have already been initiated under the Act of 1972. In this regard, the petitioner has also made a representation before the District Magistrate, which is pending consideration. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court does not find any reason to interfere in the proceedings initiated by the respondents. The petitioner has already made a representation, which would be considered appropriately by the respondents. If the petitioner is threatened that he will be evicted, it is always open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of the grievance. The writ court is not the appropriate forum. The writ petition is dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) 12-09-2011 SP