-1- NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 296 of 2025 Sitaram Juneja S/o Late Shri Darshan Singh Juneja Aged About 83 Years R/o Punjabi Colony Dayalbandh Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Pin 495001 ... Petitioner versus 1 - South Eastern Central Railways Through Its Sr. Divisional Engineer (Settlement), Bilaspur Division Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - Estate Officer Cum Additional Divisional Railway Manager I, South Eastern Central Railway Office Of The Adram- I Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Pranav Saxena, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General along with Ms. Anmol Sharma, Central Government Counsel Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 05.05.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1] It is prayed, that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records of the proceedings pending before the Ld. Estate Officer. -2- 10.2] It is prayed, that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/ quash the impugned order dated 29.01.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Ld. Estate Officer. 10.3] It is prayed, that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire proceedings pending before the Ld. Estate Officer, as a consequential relief. 10.4] Any other relief that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit keeping in mind the facts of this case and in the interest of justice.” 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent(s) moved an application under the provisions of Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short, “the Act, 1971”) without raising any legal and permissible grounds. He contends that a show cause notice under Section 4(2)(a) of the Act was issued to the petitioner without disclosing any grounds. He further submits that an objection was raised by the petitioner before respondent No.2, but the same was rejected vide order dated 29.01.2025 without discussing the grounds raised by the petitioner. 3) On the other hand, Mr. Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing for the respondent(s) would oppose the submission made by counsel for the petitioner and submit that the petitioner has filed WP227 No.2265/2025 challenging the said notice, and an order of status quo has been passed. He submits that if any adverse order is passed in the proceedings pending before the Estate Officer, the petitioner has a remedy to challenge it before the appellate authority under Section 9 of the Act, 1971. He contends that the petitioner may raise all available grounds before the appellate authority. -3- 4) Heard. 5) Taking into consideration the fact that in the application moved under Section 4 of the Act, 1971, the respondent has not raised legal and permissible grounds, the show cause notice was also not issued in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1971 and a cyclostyle notice was issued, and further, the authority concerned rejected the objection raised by the petitioner by a cryptic order, therefore, the order passed by the Estate Officer dated 29.01.2025 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is hereby allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim