IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 934*?‘0 WRIT PETITION (227) NO. [2010 IN THE MATTER OF: PETITIONER/ APPELLANT Subhash Chandra Agrowal, S/o Shri Bonwari Lal Agrawal, Aged about 55 years. R/o Industrial Word, P.O. —Dhomlari, Distric’t— Dhomtari (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS NO.T/ RESPONDENT NO. T I. The Es’rote Officer, /. South E051 Railway Management Compound, W.R.S. Colony. Raipur, Chhallisgarh RESPONDENT No.2] RESPONDENT NO. 2 /. Union of India, Through Chief Manager, South East Railway, Garden Reach, Kolkata, West Bengal, I WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA é Mr. Ankit Singhal, .counsel for the pet tioner. Ms. Naushina Ali, counsel for respondents on advance copy under instructions from Shri Aniit Chaudhari, standing counsel for respondents. By this petition, under Article 227 of legality and validity of order dated 18/03/20X § of the Public Premises (Eviction of umutho of 197i") has been dismissed as baiTed by limi tion. Learned counsel for the petitiener m ‘ew of the provisions contained under Section 9f learned counsel for the petitioner is that in 9, Sub-Section 2(a), the period of limitation is to be reckoned n'om the date of publication of the order under Sub—Section 1 of Section 5 o the order was passed by the Estate Officer on Section 5 of Sub-Section 1, only on SIOQ limitation would commence only nom 8/09/03 and not before that. It is submitted that ‘ ie appeal was initially filed on 12/09/08 before the District Judge, Raipur but later on District Judge, Raipur vide its order dated 23/09/03 returned the appeai With liberty to file the same before the District Judge, Dhamtari whereai‘tei the appeal was presented on 24/09/08 before the District Judge, Dhsnitari. The second submission of learned counsel for the petitioner 1 though assuming that there was delay in filing ‘he appeal, as the petitioner had also moved an l, application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, l963, by way of abundant caution, learned a also relied upon the iudgment of Aliahabad Vs. District Judge, Mirzapur and others, AIR Court below was obliged to consiaer re same. Learned counsel for tine petitioner ha: High Court in the case of Parrna Nanci Singh i 1988, 264; Submission of learned counsel for the respondent is that the perusal of impugned l /V\order would show that the Disuict Judge, Raipgur returned the appeal on EIOE/O9 Whereaen / h e constitution of indie, peiiiioner has assailecl by which the petitioner‘s appeal untier Section ized occupants) Act, 197} (for short " the Act the Act of 1971. It is submitted that though 2f0€i08, the same was affixed as required by He therefore submits that the period of .L._*_ 1 es two fold submissions. The first submission I' l i ‘1 W W m mmw?@a§zoavg§) m m WWWW 1i few?m m mamfraa $ 3Wm W we'd SB : Hon'hle Shri Manindra Mohan $hrivastava. J. 29=e4x291§ the appeal was tiled before the learned Cour: below after delay of 2D days and merefm'e appea1 wés not tiled within the period of Iimite ‘twn prescribed under the kw. It is submitted that the finding of the learned Cuurt below tha‘t the appeal was barred by limitation does not suffer mm any error much less an error apparent on the record and therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed while considering as to whether the appeal was filed within the period of liliritation 0' not; learned Coun below has completely misdirected itself. A bare perusal of Section of Sub-Section 2(a) shows that the appeal is required to be filed within 12 days dam the date of publication of theorder under Sub- Section l of Section 5. However, in the A perusal of impugned order shows t} tire order, the learned Court below while considering the case of the petitioner has com uted the period of limitation from the date of passing of the older without taking into cons tion the statutory provisions contained in Section 9 of Sub-Section 2 (a) of the Act, 1971 The facts of the ease are that initially e appeal was filed before the District Judge, Raipur. Later on, the same was returned and esented before the Court below. This aspect was not taken into consideration Moreov it appears that the petitioner, by way of abmd‘ant' caution, had moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonanon of delay, if any, in filing the appea . Though the impugned order records that the appeal is barred by limitation, there ls no 7011sideration of petitioners application for condonadon of delay. The order does not r fleet that any of the grounds raised by the petitioner in the application for condonation o delay were considered. The order does not Show that any satisfaction has been recorded t the cause shown for delay is not sufficient In View of the above discussion the pugned order cannot be sustained and the same is therefore set aside. Learned Court belo shall reconsider the entire matter adesli, by taking into consideration the statutory provisi contained in Section 9 of Sub-Section 2 (a) of the Act and pass appropriate orders in acco (Me. r ‘ e Additional District Judge (ETC), Dhan onlO iv y/ZOIO / ohait Shrlvdstava l ce with law. Parties shall appear before Lh r t % di. i/Manlndra M wdge t ‘ i i a e h o l i