Q f$iy IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA$PUR wan PEmION (227) No3.05) /2010 ginwa gawk (93;? , 5 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IN THE MATTER OF‘ \ PETITIONER/ r43 a; 40 ‘Q PPELL§ [6m Singh Thokur, 5/0 Balram Singh Thokur. Aged abouf 45 years, ’ Vw R/o Industrial Word, P.O. —Dhom’rari, ’ Distric‘r— Dhomfari (6.6.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS NO.1/ RESPoNDENI No. 1 K I; The Estate Officer 6/ South East Railwa§ Managemenf Compound. W.R.S. Colony, Rdipur. Chhaffisgorh RESPONDENT NO 2/ REkPONDENT No: 2 ai {x22 Union of lnd_ia, Through Chref Manager, Souih East Railway, Garden Reach, Kolkata, West Bengal, Wm mm 3.11% m an?“ mmw WW WW aaafvawm SB : Hon’me Shri Manindra Mohan S 29 =94=2$1 9 MI. Ankh Singhal, counsel for the pet Ms. Naushina Ali, counsel for [aspen Shri Amit Chaudhari, standing caunsel for res; By this petition, under Article 227 of ‘ lsgality and validiiy of order dated l8i03/20l£ 9 of the Fuhlic Premises (Eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act, 1971 (for shoit " the Act of 197V) has been dismissed as barr'ed by limi Etion. Leamed counsel for the petitioner makes two fold submissions, The first submission of learned counsel for the petifioner is that in 'ew of the provisions contained under Section 9, Sub-Section 2(a), the period of limitation is to be reckoned from the dete of publication of the order under Sub-Section l of Section 5 o the Act of 1971. it is submitted that though the order Was passed by the Estate Officer on ’2/G8/‘68, the same was affixed as required ‘oy Section 5 of Sub-Section l, only on 8/09/C . limitation would commence only &om 8/09/‘0‘ appeal was initially filed on 12/09/08 before the District Judge, Raipur but later on District mined the appeal With liberty to file the same the appeal was presented on 24/G9/08 before mission of learned counsel for the petitioner he appeai, as the petitioner had also moved an tct, 1963, by way of abundant caution, learned w timer. lam on advance copy under insmxctions from Iondants. he constimtion of lndia, pe‘dtioner has assailed by which the patitionefs appeal under Section Judge, Raipur vide its order dated 23/09/08 re before the District Judge, Dhamtari Whereafrer the District Judge, Dh-amtari. The second su’r though assuming that there was delay in filing application under Section 5 of the Limitation r‘ Court below was obliged to consider the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner has High Court in the case of Par-ma Nand Singh 1988, 264. He therefore submits that the period of i and not before that. 1t is submitted that the also relied upon the iudgment of Allahabad Vs. District Judge, Mirzapur and others, AIR Submission of learned counsel for the respondent is that the perusal of impugned l g order would show that the District Judge, Raipur returned the appeal on 23f0‘8/O9 Where-after [er i @ 3a 2mm, m, WWW m me. W382»Wgi .. m W mm wm W3- $a$awan€¥r Wm WW the appeal was filed before the learned Court below after delay of 20 days and thcrefore appeal was not fxled within the period of limits tion prescribed under the law. It is submitted that the finding of the learned Court below the appeal was barred by limitation does not suffer &om any error much less an error app ent on the record and therefore the petition is liable w be dismissed A pemsal of impugned order shows tl t while considering as to whether the appeal was filed within the period of limitation 0' not,‘ learned Court below has completely misdirected itself. A bare perusal of Section of Sub-Section 2(a) shows that the appeal is required to be filed Within 12 days. h‘om th date of publication of the order under Suh- Section 1 of Section 5. However, in the tire order, the earned Court below while considering the ease of the pitioner has co ted the period of limitation from the date of passing of the order without taking into cons ation the statutory provisions comained in Section 9 of Sub-Section 2 (a) of the Ac, 1971 The facts of the case are that initially apeal was tiled before the District Judge, Raipm’. Later on, the same was returned and nted before the Court below. This aspect was not taken into consideration Moreove it appear that the petitioner, by way o abundant caution, had moved an application a L e o 3 t n f ef r, e f under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condomtion of delay, if any, in filing the appe Though the impugned order records that the appeal is barred by limitation, ther is n onsideration of peitioner's applicatio or condonan'on of delayr The order does not rlect that any of the grounds raised by the petitioner in the application for condonation o delay were considered. "the order does not Show that any satisfaction has been recorded th the cause shown or delay is not sufficient ugned order canno be sustained and the [‘vepli i . _ _._...-i..__. ,_.. e f In View of te above discussion, e 'same is therefore set aside. Learned Court bel shall reconsider the entire matter afresh, by taking into consideration the statutory provisio contained in $ction 9 of Sub-Section 2 (a) of the Act mid pass appropriat orders in accoance with law. ?arties shallappear before \€ e rd \ e Additional Distric udge (Fro, Dhamta on nernmo h 5i- d Mohan $rivastava gudge Manindra - e ' i l et m u i r t e p ese f p t h th i ow ns e t J ) a itrayn