< 1 -! i jHjGliCOUjRlQFJUDIGATURECHjH^ SINGLEBENCH: HON'BLESHRIS.R.NAYAK,C.J. WRITi>ET!T!0]NNQ^2!B48_OFj2003 ~ PETITIONER •TahjrKhan.S/o.LateMod.lsmail Khan, aged abput 54 years, R/o. Qr. No. 16E, Str. No.30, Sector-7, Bhilai Nagar (C.G.) Distt. Durg. Versus RESPONDENTS BhilaiSteelPlant.throughM.D. fepatBhawan, Bhilainagar, Dist. Durg(C.GJ Estete Manager, Estate OfRce, CivicCentre, Bhilainagar. Present: ShnT.K. Tiwari, learnecf cciynsel fogffie petitioner: Shn RrashantMishra,leaiBiedSrAcivocatewithShriV.R. Tiwari, leamed ciounsel forthe respondents. (ORALORDER) {Passedone^ FebTuary,2006) Should 1 say, this writ petition is totally misconceived and prematurewrit petitioh.This is directed against the direction issued by the Town Administrator, Bhilai,dated 27/08/2003, calling upon the petitioner to vacate the petition schedule premises, within seven ,days, failing which theywoulc! takeappropriate stepsunder thePubtic Premises (Evjction of Unaythorized Occupants) Act, 1971 Act (for short 'the Act'). The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Town Administrator is an incbmpeteht authority to initiate proceedjngs under the Act and, therefore, intervention ofthis Court, atthis stage itself, is a must. The submission of the leamed-counsel is not aeceptable to tHe Court. It cannot be said that the Town Administrator has riot evert tMe power to -2.- request the petitioner to vacate the petition schedule premises. The eviction proceedings envisaged under the Act are not yet set in motion. It is quite obvious that if the petitioner refyses to vacate the petitipn schedule premises, the Estate Qffjcer may take appropriate steps under the Act to evict the petitioner. That stage is not reached yet. Secondly, if the Estate Officer initiates proceedings ahd ultimately passes eviction order, against such order a statutory appeal is provided to the District Court under Section 9 of the Act. The petitioner cannot bypass al] statutory remedies and rush to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution on misconceived and untenable grounds. The writpetition is, theref0re,dismissed. Nocosts. -•,———^ / Chief Justice I '^