([71: 2 (W?— IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDIQATURE AT BILASPUR§CHHATTISGARH1 f WRIT PamON No.313’7 2003 / / WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 2i7 OF THE \ CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR GRANT OF WRIT NATURE OF N MANDAMUS OR CERCIORARI OR ANY WRIT, OR DIRECTION F THE LIKE NATAHRF PETITIONER .: Raju Bagh S/o. Manoj Kumar Bagh >/ ,gg. é {21%; ;.-*w9xo ‘,‘j§""’ / " $53 $ <2? Aged about 29 years Singarpur, Vin & P. o. _ Kirandul / Tahsil & Distt — Dantewada (c.G.) ‘ if“ ‘v‘\ ‘g’a' ykvi _.\.-'* v”!!- VERsus RESPONDENK : ‘;< 1) The Estate omcer Easwx ' Rai!way Company, waftair / / 2) Indian Railway, through the /‘ Reporting officer, Asst. Engineer, Kirandui, East Coast Railway, Waitair Division, Vishakhapattanam nsel for the petitioner‘ that this order has beenpassed under sub—section (1) of ection 5 f the Pblic Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1 . ' this order, the petitier has righ o le apal before t Diict Judge as per the provisions of Seion 9 of the Act. Learned counsel or the petitioner suhmits that evn thoug te etitioner s go f e h h p ha t an alternative remedy to file an o t id ho s as transferred o respondent no.2, has not been decided‘ The efore, the petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of Ind a is maintainable. 15/ 11/2003 Shri S.C. Verma, learned cdu Heard. The petitioner has filed is Writ petiton under Articles 226/227 of te Constitution of In a ainst the order of respondent no.1 — The Estate Officer, East-oast Railway Company, Waltair, dated 25/08/2003 passe in cae . .C/26/2003 by which the responden no.1 has issued an o ler to the petioner to vacate the land of respondent no.2. The case th petitioner i of e n S o u 1 (for shor, “the Act”). Again t st on t t fi an pe he str ppeal before the District Judge, since large number of persons are ccupying these quarters and the question raised by the petitioner hat he is resing in the use much before the date when this h th i h c i ag C d n no E t t c it 97 / 1 ct o e w t XI-HC—22 I do not find any met-i in the arguments of learned caunsel for the petitioner. Section 9 f the Act provides tat an appeal shall lie from every order of th Estae fficer made in respect of any u qk e Section 7 " to an appellate off r, who shall be e District udge of the district in which the pub premises are site or such other l' uat dicial oicer in that district f not less than ten years as District ju ff o Judge may designate in this b alf, e n Since there is a clear t provision, the petitioner is entitled cu to fil an appeal bere the Disict udge under Section 9 f the Act. e fo tr J o As there is an alternative r y available to the petitioner for e ed o a peii redressal f his grievnce, I of the opinion that the ttoner cannot invoke extraordnary sdiction of this Cort under Article i j i u 226/227 of the Constitution In. This an be invked onl in f dia c o y the case where no alternative medy s available to the petitioner. e i Therefore, the petition des to be dismissed and is dismissed. e s _,However, the petitioner is at liberty to fiie an ppeal efore the a b District Juge. d Lened counsel for the etitioner submits that 3O days’ time ar p t in r ah str may be granted to he petito to file appeal before the Diict Judger and meanwhile the pe tioner should not be evicted. Since / i public premises " nder Sectin 5 of Section 5—B or Sction S-C or i ‘e th J f ‘o h q‘ t O the petitian is dismissed on abcount of an alternative remedy, ‘ therefore, such relief cannot be g1 'anted. Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Lee Judge Prayer is rejected. W®W