RESPONDENT NO. 'l /’1. The Estate Officer, South East Rditwoy Management Compound, W.‘R.S. Colony, Raipur, Chhattisgarh RESPONDENT NO.2/ RESPONDENT NO. 2 /" 2. Union of India, Through Chief Manager, South East Railway, Garden Reach, Kolkata, West Bengal, WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA g lN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR wan PETITION (227) Maggi/92010 IN THE MATTER OF: PETITIONER/ r \ APPELLANT gyr‘ $.M /’ Dhdram Chand Jain, . ." S/o Shn Kanwar Lal Jain Aged obouTEyears, R/o Indusiricl Ward, P.O. -Dhom’rori, Disfrict- Dhamfari (C.G.) VERSUS by which the petitioner‘s appeal under Section 9 of the Fublic Premises (Eviction of unaudio ized occupams) Act, 1971 (for shalt “ the Act of 1971") has been dismissed as Baned by limi tion s two fold submissions. The fisst submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in 'ew of the provisions contained under Section 9, Sub-Section 2(a), the period of limitation is to be reckoned £i'om the date of publication of the order under Sub-Section l of Section 5 o the Act of 1971. it is submitted that though the order was passed by the Estate‘Officer on 2/08/08, the same was affnted as required by Section 5 of Sub-Section l, only on 8/09 He therefore submits that the period of limitation would commence only from 8/09/03 and not before that. It is submitted that the appeal was initially tiled on 12/09/08 before the District Judge, Raipur but later on District Judge, Raipur vide its order dated 23/09/08 re before the District Judge, Dhamtm' whereaftei the District Judge, Dlr-amtari. . thoug1 assuming mat there was delay in fxhng application under Section 5 of the Limitation A Court below was obliged to consroer the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner has High Court in the case of Parma Nand Singi 1988, 264. $ubmission of learned counsel for the respondent is that the perusal of impugned g order would show that the District Judge, Raipur returned the appeal on 23/08/69 Where-aha B : Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan S é 29=e4=2919 Mr. Ankjt Singhal, caunsel for the petJ tioner. M§ Nausimra Ali, counsel for respondenm on advance copy under mstmcticns from Shri Amit Chaudhari, standing camsel for respondents. By this petition, under Article 227 of e comitution of Lidia, peiitioner has assailed legality and validity of order dated 18/03/20 Leamed counsel for the petitioner m urned the appeal with liberty to file the same the appeal Was preSented on a4/G9/08 before The second submission of iearneu counsel ior the petitioner the appeal, as the petitioner had also moved an let, 1963, by way of abundant caution, learned also relied upon the iudgment of Allahabad Vs. Bistrict Eudge, Mirzapur and others, AIR W 1 ' H e / the appeal was filed before the learned Com: below after delay 0f ‘20 days and axerefm'e appeal Wis not tiled within the period of limits tion prescribed wider the kw. It is submitted that the finding of the learned Court below the appeal was barred by limitation does not suffer &om any error much less an error app ent on the record and therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed A perusal of impugned order shows t} at while considermg as to whether the appeal was tiled within the period of limitation o' not; learned Court below has completely misdirected itself. A bare perusal of Section of Sub$eetion 2(a) shows that the appeal is required to be filed within 12 days Eom the date of publication of the order under Sub- Seetion l of Section 5. However, in the 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 order without taking into consi eration the statutmy provisions contained in Section 9 of Sub-Section 2 (a) of the Act, 1971 The facts of the case are that initially e appeal was filed before the Dish'ict Judge, Raipur. Later on, the same was returned and sented before the Court below. This aspect was not taken into consideration Moreov it appears that the petitioner, by way of abimdant' caution, had moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condomh‘on of delay, if any, in filing the appea . Though the impugied order records that the appeal is barred by limitation, there is no onsideration 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 satisfacn’on has been recorded the cause shown for delay is not sufficient in View of the above discussion, the 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 provisi ce with law. Farties shail appear before the Additional District Judge (RIC), Dha on io‘h May, 2010. / , \ ”\I" contained in $ection 9 of Sub-Section 2 (a) of the Act and pass appropriate orders in acco l it...“ - ' r e p o i i m' ’