1 / 4 2025:CGHC:46461 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4841 of 2025 Hamid S/o Late Shri Khaleel Aged About 62 Years R/o Quarter No. 174, Churcha Residential Colony, Baikunthpur Area, District Koriya, C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Through Chairman-Managing-Director Head Quarter, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, C.G. 2 - General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Baikunthpur Area, District Koriya, C.G. 3 - Sub - Area Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Churcha Mines (R.O.) Baikunthpur Area, District Koriya, C.G. 4 - Personnel Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Churcha Mines (R.O.) Baikunthpur Area, District Koriya, C.G. 5 - Estate Officer South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Churcha Mines (R.O.) Baikunthpur Area, District Koriya, C.G. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 11/09/2025 ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.09.12 18:45:13 +0530 2 / 4 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- 10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/order or suitable direction to the Respondent authorities to produce record for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court as to how many quarters are in illegal possession and in possession of retired employees and action taken, if any. 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the eviction/demolition order dated 21/08/2025 of petitioner’s quarter no. M/174, Churcha Mines Colony. 10.3 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other ancillary relief by issuing any other suitable writ, direction or order, deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost of petition. 3. The petitioner through the instant petition is challenging the issuance of notice/order issued by the Estate Officer, Churcha Mine (RO) under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1971) dated 21/08/2025. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the impugned notice/order has been issued to the petitioner just to harass the petitioner as the time for personal hearing mentioned in the notice is 11:33 on 31/03/2025 and on the same day the petitioner approached the Estate Officer around 11:15 AM, however, the concerned Staff of 3 / 4 the Estate Officer asked the petitioner to come at the given time mentioned in the notice. He would next contend that subsequently when the petitioner approached the Estate Officer around 11:35 AM, the Staff did not allow the petitioner to meet the Estate Officer for personal hearing on the ground that the petitioner became late by 02 minutes ane even on the next day i.e. on 31/03/2025 when the petitioner again visited the office of the Estate Officer along with his fresh representation/reply he was not allowed to meet him and was orally directed to vacate the premises and now this impugned notice has been issued. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondent contended that the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of SECL Quarter No.M/174, Churcha Mines Colony and after receiving notice from the Respondents he has not filed any reply. He with regard to the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that he was willing to file the reply and appeared in the office of the Respondent, contend that why the reply of the notice has not been filed along with this petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and particularly considering the provisions of Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 there is provision of filing appeal before the District Court, therefore, in view of the availability of alternative remedy, I am not inclined to 4 / 4 entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted liberty to file appeal as available to him under Section 9 of the Act, 1971 within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order before the concerned Court, if so desire. It is directed that for the period of 15 days from today no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. 8. With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu