IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATLJRE AT BILA§PUR§CHHATTISGARH1 IWRrr PErrrION N0$W12003 WRIT PErITION UNDER ARTICLE 22/6 & 2’2? OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR GRANT OF WRIT NATURE OE r MANDAMUS OR CERCIORARI OR ANY WRIT OR DIRECTION OF THF ITKF NATAURE PErlTIONER : I Vikash S/o. Vimal Krishnaiah ,.. Aged about 33 years / 6b...” A °' Vill & Post - Kirandul tbgu- f JQN " Tahsil & Distt - Dantewada (C.G.) V EL 9 02v ‘wAg: 3?,» ". .:> VERSUS w" RESPONDENTS : ~L¥V 1) The Estate Officer EagéwM ' Railway Company;Vv%ltair W 2) IndianaRailway, through the Reporting ofr‘rcer, Asst. Engineer, Kirandui, East Coast Raiiway, Waltair Division, Vishakhapattanam 15/ 11/2003 Shri S.C. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of IndLa against the order of respondent no.1 — The EstateOfficer, 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 i under sub-section (1) of Section 5 3f the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 19"1 (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 occupying these quarters and the question raised by the petitioner that he is residing in the house much before the date when this ho ise was transferred to respondent no.2, has ’not been decided. The‘efore, the petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable. XI—HC~—-78 mm w?3w{ WOOE WW (Wu) WW W€t m fa I do not find any merit te aruments of learned counsel m h g for the etitione. Section the ct' provides that an appeal pr 9 of A sall lie rom er order o the state Officer made in respect o any public premises " under Secti 5 of Section 5-B or Section 5—0 or ection 7 “ to an appellate offic shall be the Distn’ct Jud of the dstrict in hich the publi premises are situate or such other udicial office iii hat district not less than ten years as District Judge may designate n h b lf. i tis e a h a cear c t d Since tere is l provision, the petitioner is entitle to file an appeal bore the Dis ct Judge under ecion 9 of the Act. As there is a alternative re avilable to the petitioner for redressal of his grievance, I cannot invoke extraordinary dicion of hi Court undr Article 226/297 of the Constitution ndia. This can be invoked only in the case where-no alternative y is available to the petitioner Therefo, the petition deserv to be dismissed and is dismissed. However, the petitione at berty to file an appeal before the District Jge. Learned counse for h titiner sumits that 30 days’ time l te eo b may be granted to the petitio t file an appeal efore the Dirict n o b st ’Judger and meanwhile the pet tioner should not be' evicted: %J/// W mW§itm Fz aaat‘qm of the opinion hat the petiioner t t ju 'st ts e o I med /' h f evy f E f on S er, who ge i w c j r t ef t i St n m dy a re e r is i ud XI-HC-22 the petition is dismissed on account cf an alternative remedy, therefore, such relief cannot be granted. Prayer is rejected. /,/, ,N