C) 6gW IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR(CHHATI'ISGAR,_H) WRrr PErmON No.3)40éoo3 i Dhanu S/o. Damru Aged about 40 years T t} ex“ Singarpur, Vi“ &P. O. — Kirandul \XQ?*W f Tahsil & Distt — Dantewada (cm PE'ITI'IONER 1w “K W‘Q‘Qggg" VERsus v‘ nmmNDENTs : ~31 1) The Estate omcerggwJr g Railway Company, waltair / ‘ V V Z) RepOtting Indian Railway, officer, through Asst. the Engineer, Kirandui, East Coast Railway, Waitair Division, Vishakhapattanam ‘(f s 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 , 3$awwmaag§%wm§;%wm$g W mfg a§¥u¥%($ $%§) W Efréra W q 15/ 11/2003 Shri S.C. Verma, learned cc‘ihnsel for the petitioner. Heard‘ 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- Soast Railway Company, Waltair, dated 25/08/2003 passed in case no. E.C/26/2003 lay which the respondent no.1 has issued an omder to the petitioner to vacate the land of respondent no.2. The case of the petitioner is that this order has been passed under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short, “the Act”). Against this order, the petitioner has right to file an appeal before the District Judge as per the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that eVi'en though the petitioner has got an alternative remedy to file an appeal hefore the District Judge, since “lwge number of persons ar occupying these quarters and the question raised by the petitionei that he is residing in the house f much before the date when this héause was transferred to respondent S no.2, has not been decided. Therefore, the petition under Articles n t “ t WWEfWWhsmumnn;mseiaitérrrésre. mg“: XIAHC-22 mmmw WWW§f§QWW $Wam I do not find any merit in t} for the petitioner. Section 9 of th shall lio from Every order of the Esta public premises “ under Section 5~ Section 7 “ to an appellate officer, W the district in which the public prE judicial officer in that district of no Judge may designate in this behalf. Since there is a clear cut pr to file an appeal before the District J available to the petitioner for As there is an alternative remedy the opinion that the petitioner redressal of his grievance, I am of cannot invoke extraordinary jurisdic:tion of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of Ind la. This can be invoked only in the case where no alternativereme :ly is available to the petitioner. Therefore, the petition deserves to However, the petitioner is at liberty to file an appeal before the District‘Judge. ner submits that 30 days’ time Learned counsel for the petit may be granted to the petitioner to ile an appeal before the District Judger and meanwhile the petition r should not be evicted. Sin}c/ 1e arguments of learned counsel e Act provides that an appeai rte Officer made in respect of any of Section 5-B or Section 5—C or ho shall be the District Judge of mises are situate or such other t less than ten years as District ov1s1on the petltioner 1s entltled udge under Section 9 of the Act. be dismissed and is dismissed. a / Xl—PIC-22 Ea W, wmm W a —i 2003 Ant of an alternative remedy, é