G _\A\ E\?”\ L g‘rA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR(CHHATHSGARH) / WR1T PEITUON N03$¢§ 2003 Dhananjay Sahoo S/o. Vibison Sahoo , / Aged about 25 years PETITIONER -"" Singarpur, Vi“ & P. O. — Kirandul "‘- -" Tahsil & Distt —— Dantewada (C.G.) / M ”x” WRIT PEITTION UNDER ARTICLE 22g & RIT 227 NATURE OF THE OF CONSTITUTION MANDAMUS OR CERCIORARI OF INDIA FOR OR GRANT ANY WRIT OF OR W DIRECTION OF W l , $“{\&:g$n " 0‘ .--' \ o -‘ 2.“;“wt"w§9v" . VERsus x$.J" RESPONDENTS : K 1) The Estate Officer Ea‘stérggg X Railway Company, waltair through the Z) Indian Railway, Reporting officer, Asst. Engineer, East Coast Raiiway, Kirandul, Vishakhapattanam Waitair Division, XI-HC-22 15/ 11/2003 Shm' SC. Verma, learned coun‘3el for the petitioner. Hcard. The petitioner has filed this; writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constituticn of India against the order of respondent no.1 — The Estate Officer, East—Coast Railway Company, Waltair, dated 25/08/2003 passed in case not E.C/26/2003 by which the respondent noil has issued an orde" to the petitioner to vacate the land of respondent no.2 The case of the petitioner is t. hat this order has been passed he Public Premises (Eviction of under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short, “the Act”). Against / this order, the petitioner has right to ile an appeal before the District Judge as per the provisions of Sectio 9 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even hough the petitioner has got ’an alternative remedy to file an ap eal before the District Judge, since large number of persons are oc upying these quarters and the questioneraised by the petitioner th t he is residing in the house much before the date when this hous was transferred to respondent , no.2, has not been decided. Theref re, the petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India s maintainable. XI-HC- 22 Sammm, m,m WW W m m mmmw WW mW ‘%Wm I da not find any merit in tl' e arguments af learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 9 of t Act provides that an appeal shall lie from every order of the Est te‘ Officer made in respect of any public premises “ under Section 5 f Section 5—B or Section 5—C or Section 7 " to an appellate officer, the district in which the public pr judicial officer in that district of not ' Judge may desigiate in this behalf. Since there is a clear cut provision, the petitioner is entitled to file an appeal before the District Judge under Section 9 of the Act‘ As there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner for redressal of his grievance, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot invoke extraordinary jurisdic tion of this Court under Article 226/Q27i of the Constitution of Ind a. This can be invoked only in the case Where no alternative remedy is available to the petitioner. Therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file an appeal before the District‘Judge. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 3O days’ time may be granted to the petitioner to ‘ile an appeal before the District . Judger and meanwhile the petitioncr should not be evicted. Since o shall be the District Judge of ises are situate or such other less than ten years as District / Xl-HC 78 WW; @TI E1 <3, :QahEQQ W 293 m W (Wm m? W3?!m EmW$?mm§ $§#w@? '%§%Hm&$ the petition is di$missed on ac count of an alternative remedy, therefore, such relief cannot be granted, Prayer is rejected. § Sd/— § ‘ L.c.BHADoo ’24; Judge