( 1 ) THIS petition is on behalf of M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. , Ranipur, Hardwar, a public sector undertaking. The order sought to be impugned is dated 27-2-1998, Annexure A3 to the writ Petition. This is an order of the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Dehradun. A list of Bought Out Item has been finalised and the order has been issued as such, as a matter of abundant caution. In this order, it is clarified that for finalisation of Bought Out Items, any assessment made is still provisional on other counts. The impugned order mentions that other issues shall be dealt with in separate orders in due course. ( 2 ) BEYOND the record of the Writ Petition, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has moved the High Power Level Committee for raising the issues which are raised in this Writ Petition and learned counsel submits that this Petition may be kept pending and taken up in due course as the Supreme Court has held it so in a certain case. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner relied on two cases. The first was Oil and Natural Gas commission and Anr. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1992 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 432. This is a matter in which the Supreme Court has expressed an opinion that the Public Sector undertakings of State Governments and the Union of India should not be encouraged to be in litigation in Court by spending money on fees of counsel, court fees, procedural expenses and wasting public time as Courts are maintained for other litigations for those who need it. The supreme Court observed that the Courts time is not to be consumed by litigations at public expenses. The Supreme Court has suggested that the Cabinet Secretary ought to look into this matter and that the litigation should be cleared before it reaches Court. On this learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court is obliged to accept this petition and admit it and put in the array of pending dockets and that this petition ought to be put up in due course for the purposes of saving limitation on departmental proceedings. On this learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court is obliged to accept this petition and admit it and put in the array of pending dockets and that this petition ought to be put up in due course for the purposes of saving limitation on departmental proceedings. On this learned Counsel for the petitioner cited the next case, Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Collector of Central Excise, 1994 (70) E. L. T. 45 (S. C.), decided by the Supreme Court after the previous case. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel has referred to the observations of the Supreme Court which it would be best to reproduce : "accordingly, there should be no bar to the lodgement of an Appeal or petition either by the union of India or the Public Sector Undertakings before any court or Tribunal so as to save limitation. But, before such filing every endeavour should be made to have the clearance of the high Power Committee. " ( 5 ) HOWEVER, as to what the Court or Tribunal should do is such judicial remedies are sought before such a Court or Tribunal, the order of 11th October 1991 clarifies: "it shall be the obligation of every Court and every Tribunal where such a dispute is raised hereafter to demand a clearance from the Committee in case it has not been so pleaded and in the absence of the clearance, the proceedings would not be proceeded with. " ( 6 ) ON this it was submitted by learned Counsel that there should be no bar in filing a Writ petition and having it lodged. The prayer was that the petition be entertained and may be taken up in due course so that there is no impediment of limitation later. ( 7 ) IN so far as the second case in re: Oil and Natural Gas Commission (supra) is concerned, the context does not refer to any obligation on the High Court to entertain a writ petition as was submitted before the Court. This relates to other procedures in the matter of assessments, appeals and the tiered structure provided in the Central Excises and Salt Tax Act, 1944. What the supreme Court observed was that it is improper that the Government should be in litigation with its Public Sector Undertakings or within itself its departments at issues with each other. This relates to other procedures in the matter of assessments, appeals and the tiered structure provided in the Central Excises and Salt Tax Act, 1944. What the supreme Court observed was that it is improper that the Government should be in litigation with its Public Sector Undertakings or within itself its departments at issues with each other. The spirit of the order of the Supreme Court was that litigation by the State ought to be reduced and not encouraged and it would be better if such litigations are sorted out before the High Power committee. ( 8 ) IN so far as the present Writ Petition is concerned all that has happened is that the petitioner received an order from the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Dehradun, dated 27-2-1998 (Annexure 3a to the Writ Petition ). This is an order which has been passed by an officer below the rank of Collector. Notwithstanding that fact the order is provisional, as it says so, yet if the petitioner feels that he is aggrieved by this order, it could file an Appeal, if maintainable, under section 35, Chapter VIA of the Act. ( 9 ) TRUELY, this Writ Petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. .