lN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHA‘ITISGARH AT BILASPUR x2994 wan PEImON (227) No. /2010 IN THE MATTER OF: WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA .. h " K PETITIONER/ APPELLANT / sirajuddin, S/o Shri Nirajuddin, Aged about 64 years, R/o Industrial Ward, P.O. -Dham1c1ri, Districf- Dhom’rari (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS No.1] RESPONDENT NO. 1 1. The Es’rofe Officer, /, ' South East Railway Management Compound, W.R.S. Colony, Raipur, Chhottisgarh RESPONDENT No.2/ RESPONDENT NO. 2 // 2. Union of India, Through Chief Manager, South East Railway, Garden Reach, Kolkata, West Bengal, SB Hon ble 3h" Manmdra ‘Viohan Wmvastava. ”£43919 Mr. Ankh Singhal, counsel for the pet tioner. Ms. Naushina Ali, counsel for respm iems on advance copy mlder msmlctims from Shn' Amit Chaudhari, standing counsel for respondents. By this petition, under Article 227 of e constitution of lnrli-a, petitioner has assailed legality and validity of order dated 18/03/201 by which the petitioner‘s appaal under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of maumo ized occupants) Act, 1971 (for shout " the Ac of 1971") has ‘oeen dismissed as owed by li non. t Learned counsel for the petitioner s two fold submissions. The first submission of leamed counsel for the petitimer is that in 'ew of the provisions contained under Section 9, Sub-Section 2(a), the period of limitation is to be reckoned from the date of publication of the order under Sub-Section 1 of Section 5 o the Act of 1971. it is suhmitted that though the order was passed y the 1:, rate Officer on /08/08, the same was affixed as required by Section 5 of Sub-Section l only on 8/09/ He t‘xiererure suoniits that the period oi lmutation woulo commenee mly &om 8/U9/O aria not before that It is submitted that the appeal was initially filed on 12/09/08 berore 1e District Judge maipm but l‘uei on District Judge Raipur tide its order dated 23 09/08 d tue appeal With liberty to tile me same before the Dimct Judge D’iamtari Whereaue tl‘e appear Was presented on 24/39/GE beiore the District Judge, Dhdnitau. Hie second su mission of learneu counsel for the petitioner though assuming that tli‘re was delay in fiiing ‘ie appeal as the petitioner had also moved a1 applicatim under Section 5 or the Limitation ‘cL l9o3 oy ay of aounoant caution, learned Lourt below was ooliged to consioer the same. also relied upon the judgment of miaxiabad Higi Court in the case of Parma Nand Singh V's. District Ju ore, Mirzapur and others, AER An Learned counsel for the petitioner 1988, 264. ‘ . , Submission of learned commel for till respondent is that the perusal of impugned ‘ cider would show that the Dismct Judge Rmpur retumecr die appeai on I08/G9 Whereaftei: l4. __. 3 m' m e 4 T . r e n ‘ the appeal was flied before the learned Cour appeal was not filed within the period of limit£ that the finding of the leamed Court below suffer horn any error much less an error app ent on the record and therefore the petition is liable to be clismissed A pexusal of impugned order shows t} at while considermg as to wheiher the appeal was tiled within the period of limitation o misdirected itself. A bare perusal of Section‘ required to be filed within 12 days“&om the Section 1 of Section 5. However, in the e considering the case of the petitioner has com; passing of the order without taking into consi Section 9 of Sub-Section 2 (a) ofthe Aet, 19711 The facts of the ease are that initiallyi Raipur. Later on, the same was retumed anép was nOt taken into consideration Moreov abundant caution, had moved an application condonation of delay, if any, in filing the appea . Though the impugied order records that the appeal is barred by limitation, there is no“ condonation of delay. The order does not r ipetitioner in the application for condonation o show that any satisfaction has been recorded ugned order cannot be sustained and the ‘same is therefore set aside. Learned Court belo shall reconsider the entire matter afresh, by taking into consideration the statutory provisio of the Act and pass appropriate orders in acc the Additional District Judge (RIC), Dha i 1 tbelow after delay of ‘20 days and therefore tion prescribed under the law. It is submitted ‘ the appeal was Barred by limitation does not not, learned Comt below has completely 3 of Sub-Section 2(a) shows that the appeal is date of publication of the order under Sub- ntire order, the learned Court below While med the period of limitation from the date of ieration the statutory provisions contained in i he appeal was filed before the District Judge, resented before the Court below. This aspect it appears that the petitioner, by way of under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for In View of the above discussion, the onsideration of petitioner‘s application for fleet that any of the grounds raised by the delay were considered. The order does not the cause shown for delay is not sufficient p contained in Section 9 of Sub-Section 2 (a) ce With law Panes shall appear before on 10L“ May, 20m \ r i; l Mamndra Mohair ‘ihrwastdva judge Sda- e o m i ‘