IN THE MA1TER OF: PETITIONER/ APPELLANT Yogendra Singh Chobrc, S/o Kcrtcl Singh, Aged about 55 years, R/o lndustrial Word, P.O. —Dham1ari, Districf- Dhomfari (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS NOJ / RESPONDENT N0. 1 RESPONDENT NO.2/ REsPONDENT NO. 2 The Estate Officer, South East Railway Management Compound, W.R.S. Colony, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Union of India, Through Chief Manager, South East Railway, Garden Reach, Kolkata, West Bengal, WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Ma .~ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHA'ITISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETmON (2m Notifl/(f/zoto m m w§mg§amlg 200 Mmmw ‘ WW‘iwm awriw‘qm 3 1 . .. .._ “n \ SB : Hcn’ble Shri Manindra Mohan ShrivasiaVa. J. 29-04-2010 Mr. Ankit Singhal‘ counsei for the pctiticner. Ms. Naushina Ali. counsei for re$pcndems on advance copv Lmder mstruciions £10m Shri Amit Chaudhari, standing counsel for re spandénts. By this petiiion, mder Article 227 of the constituiion Cut ?muig .1 petitioner has assaileu 1 J legality and validity of order dated l8/G3/2’ 10 by which ‘ re petitlorier‘s appeal uncle: Section 9 of ihe‘Public Remises (Eviction of mmutl‘orized occupame‘) Act. 197} {for slum ” the Act of 1971") has heen riismissed as barred by i‘rti'i. Learned counsel for rhe petitioner n alces ‘cvvo fem 1 J suurrxissiorls. L ’T‘L we l"nrsi suomission 1 or £‘ leameu .J couneel for the petitioner is that ‘ view of the provisions containezi under Section 9. Sub-Section 2(a), the period of limitation s to be reekoneu J from me i oate r of puoiication 1 i of the ordef'liuidei' Sub-Section 1 of Section 5 fthe Act of 19?}. It is Submitted that though the order was passed by the Estate Officer 221’081’63, the same was affi‘ed as requireo by Section 5 of Sub-Section 1. only on 8f 8. He therefore submits that the period of limitation would commence only from 8/09 '08 and not before ti at. It is submitted that the appeal was initially tiled on 12/09/08 befo Judge, Raipur 'vide its order dated 23/09/08 .1uie N. ulsti‘ict Judge. Raipur but later on District r arned the appeal With liberty to ‘ile uie seine before the District Judge, Dhamtari wherea er the appeal was presented on 24/09/08 before the District Judge, Dhamtari. The second bmission of learned counsel for the petitioner though assuming that there was delay in fi the appeal. as the petitioner had also moved an application under Section 5 of the Liniitatio Act. 1963, by way of abundant caution. learned Court helow was obliged to consider the san Ttie-amen 1 counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the iudgrnent of Allahabad Vs. District Judge. Mirzapur and others, AER ‘Ln High Court in the case of Patina Nand 1988, 264. Submission of‘leai'ned counsel for 1e respondent is that the peiusai of impugned order would show that the District Judge. R ipur returned the appeal on $l08/09 whereafter ,v\ l" i ‘ 0 ’0 e i i . } ' S' mw.m,%&w ’ g‘x in 0 mmwfa .aff 0 ‘ WWW MW é‘mm the appea} w flied before the leard Co» beiow aier deiay 5f 2'0 ds and Therefore appe was not ed v en o 1m1io pres¢r under he aw, it is submitt that e mg ihe leam om below tt te appeal b not su rom cmr much fess an errar a e n e rx re ean la daaged A perusal of impugned order hovvs at Wlue nslermg t ee e ae w tiled Within the period of imtati ar not, eame on below as comt msdirected itself. A bare perusal of Sectio 9 of Sub-Section 2 shows at the aeal is required to be filed within 12 days from t date o publication of the rder unrler ub- Section l of Section J. al m mmn e pOu f 1iain f t i eé tu imd of eu C ha h w y huntatiun d‘ " f f any p xrm a m a‘d auu melelo t1 6 ptm me to be m s l l eod u wntnl til pnul as lion l iu Lu n pleely i n (a) th pp he f o S , However. in the entii'e ordei’, the learned Coun below while considering ihe case of the petitioner has computeo the period of limitation from the oate of passing of the order without taking into consideration the Statutoiy provisions contained in Section 9 of Sub-Section 2 (a) of the Act, 197 The facts of the case are that initially‘ the appeal was filed before the District Judge, Raipur. Later on, the séme was returned ancl‘lpresenteci before the Court below. This aspect was not taken into consideration. Moreover it appears that the petitioner. by Way of abundant caution. had moved an applicati unoer oectrorr 5 ot the nmriuuun Act ror eondorr‘on of delay, 1f any, m fnmg tue app a; Tnough me irrpogkd order records lat the appeal is oarred by hnntation, there is n' consxueretion of petitioners application for condonation of delay. The order does not efleet that any of the grounds raised by the petitioner in the application for oondonation f delay were considered. The order does not show that any satisfaction has been recorded at the cause shown for delay is not sufficient. In View of the above discussion, th impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is therefore set as1de Learned COurt be ow shah reconsiuer the ‘ire matter afresh. lav talcirg into consrderanon the sta‘utory pmvrsr ns contamed in bechon 9 or” S homer; 2 (a) of the Act anu pass appropriate orders m ad, dance Witn law raities shall appear heroic \ the Additional urstnct Judge (F T C ), Dharnrari on iG"MaV. 2m o a Mohair §hrwastdVa —~ ~ 5dr " Manindr i judge as ne ur f av l l