1 @V WK (”GA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR(CHHATTISGARH) WRrr PErrrION No.%1$62003 x Srikumar S/o. Thambi Aged about 33 years Singarpur, Vill & P. O. - Kirandu! gawk Tahsil & Distt — Dantewada (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDFNT§ $ 1) The Estate Officer EistgmJF § Railway Company, Wa’ttair ‘ / 2) Indian Railway, through the Reporting officer, Asst. Engineer, Kirandui, East Coast Railway, Waltair Division, Vishakhapattanam WRIT PEnTION UNDER ARTICLE 2’2/6 & ”227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR GRANT OF WRIT I NATURE OE THE MANDAMQS LIKE NATAURE QR QERCIORARI OR ANY WRIT OR DIRECTION OF , ,. I I The petitioner has fi 226/227 of the Constitution ‘ no.1 - The Estate Officer, I East-Coast Railway Company, Waltair, dated 25/0g/2003 passed in case no. E.C/26/2003 by which the an order to the petitioner to vacate the respondent noil has issued land of respondent no.2 The case of the petitic iner is that this order has been passed under sub-section (1) of Sect ion 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) A( :t, 1971 (for short, “the Act”). Against right to file an appeal before the District this order, the petitioner has Judge as per the provisions ( 3f Section 9 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits th at even though the petitioner has got an appeal before the District Judge, an alternative remedy to fill: since large number of persorls are occupying these quarters and the question raised by the petitrioner that he is residing in the house much before the date when this house was transferred to respondent Therefoi‘e, the petition under Articles/pr 226/227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable. //,/ / led this writ petition under Articles 3f India against the order of respondent no.2, has not been decided / XI—HC—22 dd. mid. g matwife V m 290 W antem sea W e we? 31W ft 311%?! WWe 151' 1 1[2003 i» Shri S. C. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard. XI—HC-22 , mmmw %af«war%¥! I do no find any merit the arguments of learned onsel t {n cu for the petiticner. Section 97f the Ac provides that an appeal shall lie from every order of the state Officer made in respect of any “ on r S public premises under Secti 5 of Section S-B o Section -C or Section 7 “ to an appeflat offic, who shall be the District Juge of the district in wich the publi premises are situe or such othr h c at e judicl officer in that drict not less than ten years as District ia ist Judge may designate in his b t e Since thee is a clear provision, the petitier is entitled r c t on to file en'appeal before the is t Judge under Section of the Ac. As there is an alternative re availale to the petitioner f redressal of his grievace, I of the pinion that the petitioner _ / voe aoin r s r Acl cannot ink extrrdary ju diction of this Court unde rtie 27 o ca k in 226/2 of the Constitution India. This n be invoed only the case where no alternaive edy is available t the petitione. Therefore, the petition deserve to be dismissed and is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at berty to file an appeal before the i District Judge. Leamed counsel for the etitioner submits that 30 days’ time may be granted to the petitione to file an appeal before the District Judger and meanwhile the peti ioner should not be evicted. Since 1f. l 0 t E e er d Dt ‘c 9 t m dy b or n o t r m o r WW @W émfa'qam the petitian is dismissed on acc therefore, such relief cannot be gra1 ‘oun't of an alternative remedy, Sdl— L.c.BHAD0° x 1ted. Prayer is rejected.