([60? V IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR(CHHATTISGARH) WR1T PErrrION N03149—i 2003 Deval Singh S/o. Ramcharan T é 63px” , Aged about 38 years ‘ f ack$£@v¢*‘ ' / Singarpur, Tahsil & Distt Vi“ — & Dantewada P. O. - Kirandm (C.G.) PF II [ONER “as é M‘“ VERSUS Railway Company, waltair 2) Indian Raiiway, through the Reporting officer, Asst. Engineer, Kirandul, East Coast Railway, Waitair Division, Vishakhapattanam y 1 _ fK 1) The Estate Officer Easté’wl RF§PONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 &v 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR GRANT OF WRIT NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR CERCIORARI OR ANY WRIT OR DIRECTION OF I / THE LIKE NATAURE ' i, ww néma ma ; amw mmW mgngfgigW 1511312003 Shri S.C. Vermé, lésajned coun sel 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—Coast Railway Company, Waltair, dated 25/08/2003 passed in case no. E.C/26/2003 by which the respondent no.1 has issued an order 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 oi 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 even though the petitioner has got an alternative remedy to file an appeal before the District Judge, since large number of persons are oscupying these quarters and the question raised by the petitioner that he is residing in the house much before the date when this hou 5e was transferred to respondent no.2, has not been decided. There fore, the petition under Articles " 226/227 of‘the Constitution of India is maintainable XLHC~22 my WW x/ shall lio from evegy order of thlc Estate Officer made in respect of any public premises " under Sect Section 7 “ to an appellate offi3er, who shall be the District Judge of ‘ the district in which the public premises are situate or such other judicial officer in that district on 5 of Section S-B or Section 5-C or of not less than ten years as District Judge may designate in this behalf. Since ‘ there is a clear cut provision, the petitioner is entitled to file an appeal before the Dis :rict Judge under Section 9 of the Act As there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner for redressal of his grievance, I a cannot invoke extraordinary ju 226/227 of the Constitution c the case Where no alternative Therefore, the petition deserve However, the petitioner is at District Judge.\ Learned counsel for the may be granted to the petitioni Judger and meanwhile the‘pet m of the opinion that the petitioner risdiction of this Court under Article if India. This can be invoked only in remedy is available to the petitioner. is to be dismissed and is dismissed. liberty to file an appeal before the petitioner submits that 3O days’ time 3r to file an‘appeal before the District itioner should not be evicted. Since i . > . _......................................gq‘ 2W, .............................................. mg ................................................ mm m ‘ ' ‘ 3m1 mwnmwa WW L m W171? c-T T3 3W WW A ‘ WW I do not find any meri: in the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 9 of the Act provides that an appeal XI—HC-22 &#¥& $ WHfE WW Wm? W the petition is dismissed on accc unt of an alternative remedy, therefore, such relief cannot be gram .ed. Prayer is rejected. t Sdl— i ‘ L.c.BHADoO Judge _ ‘\