a @ / CPWV IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR§CHHATFISGARH) WRrr pErmON Nof3>$$% 2003 / "x' a WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR GRANT OF WRIT NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR CERCIORARI OR ANY WRIT OR DIRECTION OF THE LIKE NATAURE PETITIONER A Dhanu S/o. Damru ’4’)” Aged about 40 years Vill & P. O. — Kirandul /$xak¥ 6 TL!' . .355 / // Tahsil Singarpur, & Distt — & Dantewada (C.G.) ":..9.*-g?2.~v’ . r yxgw ,m “go “9y VERsus M. u RESPONDENTS : $1) The Estate Officerw Railway Company, waltair 2) Indian Railway, through the’ Reporting officer, Asst." Engineer, f Kirandul, East Coast Raiiway, Waltair Division, Vishakhapattanam XI-HC-22- 15/ 11/2oo3 Shri S.C. Vanna, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heardl The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Articles 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of respondent no.1 — The Estate Officer, East-Coast Railway Company, Waltair, dated 25/08/2003 passed in c se no. E.C/26/QOO3 by which the respondent no.1 has issued an o land of respondent no.2, The case of the petitioner under sub—section (1) of Section E Unauthorized / Occupants) Act, 1* this order, the petitioner has right Judge as per the provisions of Se for the petitioner submits that e‘ an alternative remedy to file an since large number of persons art question raised by the petitionei ause was transferred to respondent no.2, has not been decided. Therefore, the petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable. ts that this order has been passed of the Public Premises (Eviction of 971 (for short, “the Act”). Against to file an appeal before the District :tion 9 of the Act. Learned counsel en though the petitioner has got appeal before the District Judge, 2 occupying these quarters and the much before the date when this h ‘ that he is residing in the house der to the petitioner to vacate the XI‘HC-ZZ WW%WW %awf‘anm for the petitioner. I do not find any merit in i Section 9 of ‘t shall lie from every order of the Est public premises Section 7 " to an appellate officer, who shall be the District Judge of the district in which the public p emises are situate or such other judicial officer in that district of n Judge may designate in this behalf Since there is a clear cut r to file an appeal before the District As there is an alternative remedy redressal of his grievance, I am c / cannot invoke extraordinary jurisd 226/227 of the Constitution of In the case Where no alternative rem Therefore, the petition deserves tc However, the petitioner is at libs District Judge. Learned counsel for the peti may be granted to the petitioner tc Judger and meanwhile the petitior .he arguments of learned counsel he Act provides that an appeal ate Officer made in respect of any " under Section 5 of Section 5-B‘ or Section S-C or ot less than ten years as District revision, the petitioner is entitled Judge under Section 9 of the Act. available to the petitioner for f the opinion that the petitioner ction of this Court under Article :lia. This can be invoked, only in edy is available to the petitioner. be dismissed and is dismissed. rty to file an appeal before the tioner submits that 30 clays’ time file an appeal before the District 1er should not be evicted. , Since XI—HC-ZZ WW WW ammm r- "<r, ‘bn account of an alternative remedy, the petition is dismissed therefore, such relief cannot be granted. Prayer is rejected. [ti1% W