m THE HIGH COURT QF juDECATuRE AT BILASPumgHHAWTISGARH; w'm- WRrr PEIi'‘no'N No.3)35zoo3 x Smt. ;..- Aged Singarpur, Vill & P. O. — Kirandul Tahsi RESPONDENT§ :\ZL 1) [2) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTIC Subhadra W/o. Late Shankar Rao about 55 years l & Distt — Dantewada (C.G.) The Railway Estate Company, Officer Easwé waitair Indian Railway, through the Reporting officer, Asst. Engineer, Kirandui, East Coast Railway, Waltair Division, Vishakhapattanam LE ,226/ & 2iz/0F THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR GRANT OF WRIT NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR CERCIORARI OR ANY WRIT OR DIRECTION OF HE LIKE NATAI JRF VERSUS 5 ’ T Xi—HC—7 ii “era-WI m ”rmc; wVKfB @m 3" Shri S.C‘ Verma, learned c ounsel for the petitioner. Heard. this Writ petition under Articles The petitioner has filed 226/227 of the Constitution of II 1dia against the order of respondent no.1 — The Estate Officer, East -Coast Railway Company, Waltair, dated 25/08/2003 passed in c ase no. E.C/26/2003 by which the arder to the petitioner to vacate the respondent notl has issued an land of respondent no.2. is that this order has been passed The case of the petitioner of the Public Premises (Eviction of under sub—section (1) of Section 5 1971 (for short, “the Act”). Unauthorized Occupants) Act, thia order, the petitioner has rigl’ it to file an appeal before the District Judge as per the provisions of St action 9 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that e *ven though the petitioner has got an alternative remedy to file an appeal before the District Judge, since large number of persons a i question raised by the petitiondar that she is residing in the house Against much before the date when this house was transferred to respondent i no 2 has not been decided Tigierefore the petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of Ind1a 1s maintainable E "e occupying these quarters and the a mywég V “We? EQGB Wi‘cmtaaie ammmm anami'weea) WWW L, ewmaww enamm 15/11/2003 I do not find any merit in thé arguments of learned counsel fer the petitioner. Section 9 of the Act provides that an appeal shall lie from ovary order of the Estate Officer made in respect of any public premises " under Section 5 o‘ Section S-B or Section S-C or Section 7 “ t'o an appellate officer, W o shall be the District Judge of the district in which the public pre ises are situate or such other judicial officer in that district of not less than ten years as District Judge may designate in this behalfi Since there is a clear out pr Vision, the petitioner is entitled to file an appeal before the District J dge under Section 9 of the Act. ,As there is an alternative remedy ilable to the petitioner for a redressal of her gievance, I am of he opinion that the petitioner ' r cannot invoke extraordinary jurisdic 'on of this Court under Article i i 226/227 of the Constitution of Ind This can be invoked only in the case where no alternative reme is available to the petitioner. d Therefore, the petition deserves to dismissed and is dismissed e However, the petitioner is at liber to file an appeal before the t District Judge. i e Learned counsel for the petit r submits that 30 days’ time may be granted to the petitioner to f' e an appeal before the District Judger and meanwhile the petitione should not be evicted. Shya/“X