IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHA'ITISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) NO. I2OTO &0€>$ IN THE MATTER OF: PETITIONER/ APPELLANT / Ajay Kumdr Sahu, ‘ WV) x s/o’Shri Aged abouf45 Khooblol years, Sahu, R/o lndus’rriol Ward, P.O. -Dhamtari, u" Distric’te Dhamfari (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS NO.‘I/ REsPONDENT No. 1’ / I. The Esfafe Officer, Souih East Railway Management Compound, W.R.S. Colony, Raipur, Chhattisgarh RESPONDENT NO.2/' RESPONDENT NO. 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 SB : Han’bie Shri Maniiidra fviohan é’hrivw‘iava, J. 29£4=ze1e Mr. Ankit Singhai, counsel for the pet tioner. Ms. Naush'ma Ali, counsel for respomim$ on advance cbpy under mstmctims from Shri Amit Chauéhari, standing counsei for respandents. By this petitian, under Article 227 of ihe constitution of mdia, periiioner has assaiiea‘ iegality and validity of order dated RIOS/20% by which the petitioner‘s appeai uncier Seciion 9 of the Fubiic Fremisa (Eviction of utmutho. 'ized occupants) Act, i971 kfor ; snoxi . n the Act of 1971 ") has been dismissed as ‘o-aneé hy limitation s two fold submissions. The first submission of teamed counsei for the petitionor is that in 'iew of the provisioiis contained uridor Section 9, Sub-Section 2(a), the perioc‘i of limitation is to be reckoned irom the oate of publication of the order unoei' Sub—Section i of Section 5 o the Act of i97i. it is subi‘nit‘ted that though the order was passed by the Estate Officer on 2/08i’08, the same was affixeo as required by Section 5 of Sub-Section i, only on 81’09 Learnexi counsel for the petitioner m He therefore su‘omits that the periou J o:£ limitation wouid commence oniy from 8/09/‘0 ami not before that. it is submitted that the appeal was initially fiied on 12/09x’08 before 1e District Judge, Raipur but later on District Judge, Raipur vide its order ciatetl 23/0908 d the appeal with liberty to file the same before the District Judge, Dhamtari whereaft the appeal was presented on 24f09/G8 before the District Judge, Dhamtari. The second so" mission of learned counsel for the petitimier though assuming that there was delay in filing he appeal, as the petitioner had also moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation ct, l963, by Way of abundant caution, learned Court below was obliged to consider the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Farina Nand Singh Vs. District judge, Mirzapur and others, AER 1988, 264. Submission of’leai‘ned counsel for tli respondent is that the perusal of impugned order would show that the District Judge, Raipllir returned the appeal on 23i08i09 whereaiter [ea an 1 e 1’ r‘ e e l the appeai was flied befm’e the learned Com appeai was not filed within §w period of Emitz that the finding of the learned Court below that the appeai was barred by limitation does not 'ent on the record and therefore the petition is suffer &om any error much Eess an error appai liable to ba dismissed. A perusai of impugned order shows t}: wee filed within the period of limitation o misdirected itself. A bare perusa} of Section f required to be fiied within 12 days from the Section 1 of Section 5. However, in the e considering the case of the petitioner has com; passing of the order without taking into oonei Section 9 of Sub-Section 2 (a) of the Act, 1971. The facts of the case are that initially ‘ie appeal was tiled before the District iudge, Raipur. Later on, the same was returned anti esented before the Court below. This aspect was not taken into consideration. Moreover, it appears that the petitioner, by way of abuodant cauiion, had moved an application condonation of delay, if my, in filing the appea appeai is barred by iimitation, there is no condonation of delay. The order does not reflect that any of the grounds raised by the petitioner in the application for condonation oi” delay were considered. The order does not the cause shown for delay is not sufficient. pugned order cannot be sustained and the 'saine is therefore set aside. Learned Court helo ' shall reconsider the entire matter afresh, by taking into consideration the statutory provisio s contained in Section 9 of Sub-Section 2 (a) of the Act and pass appropriate orders in accoi t beiow aner delay of 20 days and therefore tion prescribed under the 33w, 1t is submitted at whiie considering asto whether the appeal t not, learned Court beiow has eompieteiy 9 of Sub-Section 2(a) shows that the appear is date of publication of the order under Suh- ntii‘e order, the learned Court below While ruted the period of limitation from the date of ieration the statutory provisions contained in under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for .. Though the impugied order records mat the :onsideration of petitioner‘s application ‘for Show thatany satisfaction has been recorded th In View of the above discussion, the i ice with law. i3ar’ties shall appear hefore eAdditimlDismctrudge (Eroti‘jhm ’onro‘i‘rvrayeerg ./»J/ / y ‘ ,Manindra m 200 mm m W‘ 311w mm mmmw‘aa wg > WWW WW %Wm