@ y cw ’ é”) &/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR(CHHATTISGARm WRrr PErmON No.314—3Z2003 ’” if,” fwxr WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 22§ & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR GRANT OF WRIT NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR CERCIORARI OR ANY WRIT OR DIRECTION OF THE LIKE NATAURE ? PFTITIONER : ' Raju Bagh S/o. Manoj Kumar Bagh Aged about 29 years Singarpur, Vi“ & P. O. ~ Kirandul ‘ §§§9zh \&éa.u “W” Tahs“ & D‘stt — Dantewada (C.G.) w “"’"w"";'6§:.9?-“"" “J“ .\,‘.9-..-* VERsus “"V it ..... < a. EwML L RF§PONDENTS x; 1) The Estate Officer Railway Company, waltair M2) Indian Railway, through the Reporting officer, Asst. Engineer, Kirandul, East Coast Railway, g N Waitair Division, Vishakhapattanam WWWW a‘aw 113535 (Q 5P ‘3 mwm g (égg 2993 mmwma Wwmiifgé %7amen%¥i 15/11/2003 nsel for the petitioner. 1 Shn‘ S.C. Verma, learned cou HearcL The petitioner has filed t1 1is Writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of Indi a against the order of respondent no.1 — The Estate Officer, East—C oast Railway Company, Waltair, no. E.C/26/2003 by which the dated 25/08/2003 passed in case respondent no.1 has issued an orc ter to the petitioner to vacate the land of respondent no.2. that ‘this order has been passed The case of the petitioner is under sub—section (1) of Section 5 ( if the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupanto) Act, 19’? this order, the petitioner has right t Judge as per the provisions of Sect ion 9 of the Act Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that eve 1 though the petitioner has got an alternative remedy to file an a ppeal before the District Judge, since large number of persons are 1‘ question raised by the petitioner 1 much before the date when this houise was transferred to respondent no.2, has not been decided. Thei efore, the petition under Articles, 226/227 of the Constitution of Indi a is maintainable. i 1 (for short, “the Act”). Against o file an appeal before the District Dccupying these quarters and the L:hat he is residing in the house m I do not find any merit in the arguments of learned éounsel for the petitioner. Secticn 9 of the Act provides that an appeal shall lie from every order of the EstatJ: Officer made in respect of any public premises " under Section 5 oi Section 5—B or Section 5-C or Section 7 " to an appellate officer, who Shall be the District Judge of the district in which the public premises are situate or such other judicial officer in that district of not less than ten years as District Judge may designate in this behalf. Since there is a clear cut pro vision, the petitioner is entitled to file an appeal before the District Ju dge under Section 9 of the Act. As there is an alternative remedy‘ a‘railable to the petitioner for redressal of his grievance, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. This can be invoked only in the case Where no alternative remedy is,ava.ilable to the petitioner. Therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file an appeal before the Districtllnclge. Learned counsel for the petitio 1er submits that 30 days"time may be granted to the petitioner to fi e an appeal before the District Judger and meanwhile the petitioner should not be evicted. Since,;/’ / / / m 31 m W f .q) 331% the petition is dismissed on acco!1.1m. of an alternative remedy, therefore, such relief cannot be grant Ed‘ Prayer is rejected. sal- L.c.BHAD°° Judge [@W XI: PIC-22