lN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATIISGARH AT BILASPUR WRTT PETTTION (227) Nogé’g 0/2010 §m§ @ ggggw J / WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 227 QF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA OW? I lN THE MATTER OF: fr PETITIONER/ ‘0.» W Kg‘x w/ Murl; Manohar Dewongon,, S/o Shn shycm Lal Dewangon Aged obout33 years R/o Industrial Ward, P.O. -Dhomtari, District- Dhamfori (C.G.) VERSUS ESPONDENTS NO.T/ ' RESPONDENT NO. ‘l 1x. The Esfate Officer. f" Soufh Easi Railway Manogemenf Compound, W.R.S. Colony, Roipur, Chhomsgarh RESPONDENT NO 2/ ESPONDENT NO 2 2. Union of India, Through Chief Manager, KT South Eosi Railway, Garden Reach, Kolkalo, West Bengal, am Haas ‘ wPéHBaoEOgg M, algal m mmH§wmn mammma . $31Fawm SB : Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan é’hrivastava. J. 29£4=2919 Mr. Ankit Singhai, wunsel for the pew tioner. Ms. Naushm-a Ali, counsel for respondents on advance copy mxder instmctions from Shri Amit Chaudhari, standing counsel for respondents. By this petition, under Article 227 of ihe constitun‘on of méia, petitioner has assailed legality and validity of order dated 18l03/201C by which the petitioners appeai under Section 9 of the Fublic Premises (Eviction of wraumorized occupants) Act, 1971 (for ehon " the Act of 1971") has been dismissed as barred by limitation. s two fold submissions. The first submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in ‘ew of the provisions contained under Section 9, Sub-Section 2(a), the period of limitation is to be reckoned iron} the dare of publication of the order under Sub-Section 1 of Section 5 o the Act of 1971. It is submitted {hat diough the order was passed by the Estate Officer on 2/08/68, the same was affixed as required by Section 5 of Sub-Section 1, only on 8/09 c. (so, s H He therefore submits that the period of limitation would commence only &om 8/09/0 and not before that. It is submitted that the appeal was initially filed on 12/09/08 before 1e District Judge, Raipur but later on District Judge, Raipur vide its order dated 23/09/08 d the appeal with liberty to iiie the same before the District Judge, Dhamtari whereafte the appeal was presented on 24/6 1’08 before the District Judge, Dhamtari. The second su‘ mission of iearned counsel for the petitioner Though assuming that there was delay in filing ‘ie appeal, as the petitioner had also moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation ct, $63, by way of abundant caution, learned Court below was obliged to consider the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner also reiied upon the iudgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Farma Nand Singh Vs. District iudge, Mirzapur and others, AIR 1988, 264. Submission of learned counsel for thl respondent is that the peiusal of impugned l, order would show that the District Judge, Raipttr returned the appeal on 23/08/09 WhereaRer “e / r- e l- ‘ Wm W . ”aw..§...CQ.Q..§>....Q.9.3.9.}m C 200 m ,VQ- mmffwm %ax%msTr€taT the appeal was filed before the learned Cour appeal was not flied within the period of Hmita that the finding of the learned Court below the suffer &om any error much less an error appai liable to be dismissed A pemsal 0f impugned order shows 11’ was filed within the period of limitation o misdirected itself. A bare perusal of Section required to be filed Within 12 days &om the Section l of Section 5. However, in the entire order, the learned Court below while considering the case of the petitioner has com; ruted the period of limitation from the date of passing of the order without taking into consideration the statutory provisions contained in Section 9 of Sub-Section 2 (a) of the Act, 1971 The facts of the case are that initially the appeal was filed before the District ludgex Raipur, Later on, the same was returned and was not taken into cozieideratioxr Moreove abundant caution, had moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonah‘on of delay, if any, in filing the appea t Though the impugied order records that the appeal is barred by limitation, there is no onsideration of petitioner‘s application for condor-ration of delay The order does not r fleet that any of the grounds raised by the petitioner in the application for condonstion o delay were considered The order does not Show that any satisfaction has been recorded th the cause shown for delay is not sufficient in view of the above discussion, the t below after delay of 20 days and therefore tion prescribed under the law. It is subrnined tthe appeal Was barred by limitation does not ‘ent on the record and therefore the petition is at while considering ae to whether the appeal r not, learned Court below has completely ? of Suh-Section 2(a) shows that the appeal is date of publication of the order under Sub- ' Mgr; W esented before the Court below, This aspect it appears that the petitioner, by way of pugned order cannot be sustained and the same is therefore set aside. Learned Court helo shall reconsider the entire matter afresh, by taking into consideration the statutory provisio contained in Section 9 of Ebb-Section 2 (a) ce with law. Farties shall appear before krx/ Sdi astava 'l; ghr'w of the Act and pass appropriate orders in acco e Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Dha i i on io‘h May, 20io./ ‘ Manindra gudge Gha i ‘ i m