IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227)NO?6%/2010 IN THE MAnER 0F: gingia Y§m8~§i / S/o Shri Gyorasi L0! Mohovor. ' Aged R/o lndushia!Ward. obou’t 70 years, .... P.O. -Dham1ari, PETITIONER/ .,Hari Ram Mahavar. KPPELLANT n ’ 3” . District— Dhamfdri (C.G.) VERSUS §P0NDENTS No.1 / / (gsmNDENI No. 1 ‘/ The South Estme East Officer. Railway Management Compound. W.R.S. Colony, Roipur, Chhcttisgarh jésPONDENI no.2/ ’ RESPONDENT NO. 2 2. ’ Union of lndia, {r’ Through Chief Manager, South Easf Railway, Garden Reach, Kolkata, Wes? Bengal, WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 227 QF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA m m wwwéqam<bgo 200 WW1§wm mmmm awrmm B : Hcn’bie Shri Manindra Moha hrWasfava. S n S J. 29-04-201 O Mr. Anidt Sing1‘xa1, counsel for the p titioner. Ms. Naushina Ali. cowxsei for resp )dems an advance copy unucl . . .V . instructions from Shh Amit Chaudhari, standmg counsei for r spandants. By this petition under Articke 227 ‘the comiituiion of india, petitioner has assai1ed iegality and validity of order dated 18/03/20 0 by which the petitioner's appeal under Section 9 of the Pubiic B‘emises (Eviction of miauti orized occupants} Act, i971 (for sholt ’7 the Act of 1971") has been dismissed as barred'by 1" iitati‘n. Leamet‘l counsei for the petitioner n akes two $[oiu 1 . submissions. 'T‘L me first submis on wu aimed under Section 9. Sub-Section 2(a), the period of limitation s to be reckoned from the (late of pubiication of the order under Sub-Section l of Section J .- f me t Act of i9?1. It is submitteu J that tnough 1 the order was passed by the Estate Officer 22i08/68, the same was affixed as tequireé by Section 5 of Sub-Section 1‘ only on 81" 1 of learned counsel for the petitioner is that ‘ view of éL. me provisiorts 8l He therefore submits that the perioc‘t of limitation would commence only nom 8/69 O8 and not before that. It is submitted that the appeal was initially filed on 12/09/08 befo Judge. Raipur vide its order dated %/09/08 before the District Judge, Dhamtari wherea er the appeai was presented e on 2+0; ll \ vb (\O beiore 5‘ the District Judae, Dhamtaril The second ruission of iearned counsel for the petitioner though assuming that there was delay in fiiii the appeal, as the petitioner had also moved an appiieation under Section 5 of the Limitati Act 1963, by way of abundant caution, iearned Court below was obliged to consider the sa . Learned counsel for the petitioner las aiso relied upon the iudgment of Ailahabad High Court in the ease of Parma Nand Vs. District Judge. Mirzapur and others, AER 1988, 264. Submission of learned counsel for he respondent is that the perusai of impugned l ipur returned the appeal on ’B/Og/O9 Whereafter [an at: the District Judge. Raipui’ but later on District tarned the appeai with ii‘oeny to we uie same 4::1- 4,1. i order would show that the District Judge. r ’0 0 r e ‘ b o m S' m 3mm . .wég%&.&. Wm mm mm‘mw . Q , WW %W WWW iuca that the fin&ng of ihe learned Com beiow that the appeal was barred by liniiiztion éoes not suffer horn any error much iess an error app arent on the recor anti therein? the petition is liabie t0 be dismiswd. A peiusal of impugned order shows hat While considering ds to whether the appeai was fried withinthe period of iimitaxion or not, ‘reameci Cour: below has compieteiy misdirected itself. A bare perusal of Section 9 of Sub-Section 2(a) shows that the aopeai is . required to be filed Within 12 days hem the date of publication of the orcier uncier Sub- oection r‘ ' . . 1 r Oi 1‘ oection (i 3. However; in the entire order. the learned Court beiow whiie considering the case of the petitioner has cor puteii the period of iimitation from the date of ideration the statutory provisions contained in ‘. passing of the Order without takiug into co Section 9 of Sub-Section 2 (a) ofthe Act, 19 . The facts of the case are that initiaii the appeal was fiied before the District Judge. Raipur. Later on, the some was returned ano‘ presented before the Court beiow. This aspect was not taken into consideration. MoreO' r, it appears that the petitioner. hy Way of wider Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, if any, in tiling the app al. Though the impugied order records that the consideration of petitioner‘s appiication for iiect that any of the grounds raiseé by the delay were considereo. The order does not t ‘ihe cause shown for deiay is not sufficient i In View of the above discussion, th taking into consideration tho stamtory provisi abundant caution. hari moved an applicati appeal is ban'od by limitation. there is condonation of de1ay. The order does not petitioner in the application for condonation show that any satisfaction has been recorded . i I i Leirl'ianindra Mohan $hriv judge 5dr; rhe- appeai Was flied before the learned Conn heiow after deiay of '20 ciavs and iherefore appeai was not fried within t‘ne perioc‘i of iimiiaiirm prescribed under the iaw. 1t issu‘om' impugneci orcier cannot be sustained and the i \\ same is therefore set aside. Learned Court be ow shah reconsider the entire matter afresh, by ns contained in Section 9 or" onb~Section 2 (a) of the Act and pass appropriate orders in ace rdance with law. Farties shail appear before the Additional Dish-ict Judge ('F.T.C.), Dharntnri/on lGg‘ Mav 201G ‘ " astava n‘ e f a ‘ : 7